Local Road Safety/Action Plan
CITY OF FORT BRAGG, CALIFORNIA
September 2024
Final Report
PREPARED BY
The preparation of this report (or plan) was programmed through the Mendocino Council of Governments' FY 2023/24 Transportation Planning Work Program and funded with State (Regional Planning Assistance) Discretionary Grant funds. $89,707 is the dollar amount for the contract related to the preparation of this Final Report/Plan.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
i
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) Action Plan Components ..................................... 4
1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 5 What is a LRS/AP?................................................................................................... 5 Vision and Goals of the LRS/AP............................................................................... 5 Study Area................................................................................................................ 5
2. Safety Partners......................................................................................................... 7 Leadership Commitment to Road Safety.................................................................. 9
3. Existing Planning Efforts......................................................................................... 12
4. Collision Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................... 19 Demographic and Jurisdiction Characteristics........................................................ 20 Collision Data Collection......................................................................................... 23 Collision Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 23 Preliminary Analysis ............................................................................................... 25 Killed and Severe Injury Collision Analysis............................................................. 31 Geographic Collision Analysis (2020-2022)............................................................ 37 Collision Severity Weight........................................................................................ 43 High-Injury Locations.............................................................................................. 45
5. Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................................... 51 The 5 E’s of Traffic Safety ...................................................................................... 51 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Fort Bragg........................................... 52 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas ................................ 53
6. Equity ..................................................................................................................... 59 Equity-Emphasis Communities............................................................................... 60 Roadway Safety in Equity Emphasis Communities ................................................ 63
7. Countermeasure Identification................................................................................ 66 Countermeasures Selection ................................................................................... 66 Draft Countermeasure Toolbox .............................................................................. 67 City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
ii
Other Countermeasures ......................................................................................... 70
8. Safety Projects ....................................................................................................... 71
9. Evaluation and Implementation .............................................................................. 77 Implementation....................................................................................................... 78 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 79 LRS/AP Update ...................................................................................................... 81
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area: City of Fort Bragg ......................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Project Website................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Public Comments Map – City of Fort Bragg ..................................................... 8 Figure 4. City of Fort Bragg - Public Comments.............................................................. 9 Figure 5. All Injury Collisions on Fort Bragg Roadways (2020-2022)............................ 20 Figure 6. Collisions by Severity (2020-2022)................................................................. 24 Figure 7. Yearly Collision Trend (2020-2022)................................................................ 25 Figure 8. Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions - All Collisions (2020-2022)................... 25 Figure 9. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) ....................... 26 Figure 10. Violation Category: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022)................. 27 Figure 11. Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) .. 28 Figure 12. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions.................................... 29 Figure 13. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) .............. 29 Figure 14. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022)..................... 30 Figure 15. Fort Bragg KSI Collisions (2020-2022)......................................................... 32 Figure 16. KSI Collisions: Roadway Segments and Intersections (2020-2022) ............ 33 City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
iii
Figure 17. KSI Collisions: Violation Category (2020-2022) ........................................... 33 Figure 18. KSI Collisions: Collision Type Vs Violation Category (2020-2022)............... 34 Figure 19. KSI Collisions: Type and Motor Vehicle Involved with (2020-2022) ............. 34 Figure 20. KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved with vs Violation Category (2020-2022) ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 21. KSI Collisions: Collision Type Vs Lighting Conditions (2020-2022).............. 35 Figure 22. KSI Collisions: Collisions Type vs Time of the Day (2020-2022).................. 36 Figure 23. Sideswipe Collisions .................................................................................... 38 Figure 24. Automobile Right of Way Collisions ............................................................. 39 Figure 25. Improper Turning Collisions ......................................................................... 40 Figure 26. Rear End Collisions...................................................................................... 41 Figure 27. Nighttime Collisions...................................................................................... 42 Figure 28. Fort Bragg EPDO Score (2020-2022) .......................................................... 44 Figure 29. City of Fort Bragg High Injury Network (2015-2019) .................................... 46 Figure 30. City of Fort Bragg High Injury Network (2020-2022) .................................... 49 Figure 31. City of Fort Bragg Equity-Emphasis Communities ....................................... 62 Figure 32. City of Fort Bragg Transportation Disadvantage .......................................... 63 Figure 33. Collision Share in Equity-Emphasis Community .......................................... 64 Figure 34. Top Violation Categories in Equity Emphasis Areas .................................... 64
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Document Review Summary........................................................................... 13 Table 2. Fort Bragg and Mendocino Population and Centerline Miles .......................... 21 Table 3. City of Fort Bragg Commute to Work Census Data......................................... 21 City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
iv
Table 4. Comparison of traffic fatality rates by jurisdiction ............................................ 22 Table 5. Office of Traffic Safety Ratings 2021............................................................... 23 Table 6. Collisions by Severity and Fatality Type (2015-2022) ..................................... 24 Table 7. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 12 ............................................................... 43 Table 8. High Injury Intersections (2015-2019) ............................................................. 47 Table 9. High Injury Corridors (2015-2019)................................................................... 48 Table 10. High Injury Intersections (2020-2022) ........................................................... 50 Table 11. High Injury Corridors (2020-2022)................................................................. 50 Table 12. Existing Programs Summary ......................................................................... 52 Table 13. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies .......................................................................... 54 Table 14. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies .......................................................................... 55 Table 15. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies .......................................................................... 56 Table 16. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies .......................................................................... 57 Table 17. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies .......................................................................... 58 Table 18. List of Viable Safety Projects (City Roads).................................................... 72 Table 19. List of Viable Safety Projects (State Route/Highway 1)................................. 73 Table 20. Cycle 11 HSIP Applications........................................................................... 74 Table 21. Prioritization Matrix........................................................................................ 75 Table 22. Priority Project List ........................................................................................ 76 Table 23. Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................ 77 City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
v
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Summary of Public Comments
Appendix B: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Appendix C: Consolidated Collision Database
Appendix D: Average Annual Fatality Rates Calculation
Appendix E: Equity Emphasis Communities Collision Analysis Appendix F: LRSM 2024
Appendix G: HSIP Analyzers (2024)
Appendix H: Project Prioritization Calculation
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
1 Executive Summary
The City of Fort Bragg’s Local Road Safety/Action Plan (LRS/AP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. The LRS/AP aims to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.
This update to the previous Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) adopted in 2022 takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. As indicated by this update, it is also a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities.
With the LRS/AP as a guide, the City will be able and ready to apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A).
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The Introduction presents the project, describes how this report is organized, summaries the vision and goals, and the study area for the LRS/AP.
Chapter 2 – Safety Partners
This chapter covers Fort Bragg’s collaborative approach to road safety, detailing the involvement of various City departments, local organizations, and agencies in developing and implementing the Local Road Safety/Action Plan. It highlights the engagement of diverse stakeholders through meetings and online platforms, as well as the City’s leadership commitment to enhancing road safety through a multi-faceted approach. The chapter introduces Mendocino Council of Government (MCOG) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that will serve as the body to review and monitor the recommendations and Safety Project implementation and construction.
Chapter 3 – Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes existing City and regional planning documents and projects that are relevant to the LRS/AP. It ensures that the recommendations of the LRS/AP are in line with existing goals, objectives, policies, or projects. This chapter summarized the following documents: City of Fort Bragg FY 2023-2024 Budget, 2018 Street Safety Plan, City of Trails: Supplemental Trail Feasibility Studies (2017), City of Trails: Trails Feasibility Study (2016), Inland General Plan (2012), Mill Site Specific Plan (2012), South Main Street Access and Beautification Plan (2011), Fort Bragg Bicycle Master Plan (2009), City of Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan (2008), Mendocino County Pedestrian Facility Needs Inventory and Engineered Feasibility Study (2019), Mendocino Council of Governments 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (2019), Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan & Active Transportation Plan (2022), Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014)
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
2 Chapter 4 – Collision Data Collection and Analysis
Collision data was obtained and analyzed for a three-year period from 2020 to 2022 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS) and compared with previous year’s (2015-2019) collision trends.
The collision analysis identified general trends of collisions in the City of Fort Bragg.
There were a total of 275 collisions reported Citywide from 2020 to 2022. Out of these 275 collisions 219 (80 percent) were property damage only (PDO) collisions, 32 collisions (12 percent) led to complaint of pain injury and 19 collisions (seven percent) led to a visible injury. There were five fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions, four collisions (one percent) led to a severe injury and one collision led to a fatality.
KSI Collisions peaked during 1 p.m. - 2 p.m. and 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. The highest number of injury collisions were observed between 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Rear-end collisions (40 percent) have the highest rate of KSI collisions followed by hit object (20 percent) and broadside (20 percent) collisions. The highest violation categories contributing to KSI collisions is unsafe speed (40 percent), followed by driving under influence of alcohol (DUI) and following too closely with 20 percent each.
Also, 60 percent of total KSI collision involved people in the age range greater than 50 years.
Out of all KSI collisions, 40 percent collisions occurred in dark conditions including dusk or dawn.
Chapter 5 - Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas are a focus of the LRS/AP identified through the various collision types and factors resulting in KSI collisions within Fort Bragg. The five emphasis areas for Fort Bragg are:
Intersection safety
o Collisions within 250 feet of intersections
Pedestrian safety
Rear End Collisions
Driving Under Influence Collisions
SR 1/Hwy 1 Collisions
Chapter 6 – Equity
The Equity chapter underscores Fort Bragg’s commitment to advancing fair and equitable transportation safety improvements for all residents. It analyzes collision data with respect to equity-emphasis communities (EEC), which comprise 50 percent of the city's census tracts and 59 percent of its population. Key findings reveal that 32 percent of total collisions and 20 percent of KSI collisions occur in EEC. The analysis considers various factors including collision types, modes of transportation, violation City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
3 categories and lighting conditions to provide a comprehensive overview of safety challenges in vulnerable communities.
Chapter 7 – Countermeasure Identification
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) 2024 used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 5 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas.
Chapter 8 – Safety Projects
A set of ten safety projects were created for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, using HSIP approved countermeasures. Among those, six projects were identified for city roads and four projects for California State Route 1 (SR 1). These safety projects are:
City Roadways
Project 1 - Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections.
Project 2A: Improve Pedestrian Safety on Non-signalized Intersections. (Pedestrian Set Aside)
Project 2B: Improve Pedestrian Safety on Willow Street. (Pedestrian Set Aside) Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segments.
Project 4: Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety at Roadway Segments.
Project 5: Citywide Sign Inventory: This project will involve and include all the parts of the city to improve, replace, or install new signage throughout the entire city. (Regulatory and warning)
California State Route (SR 1)/Highway 1
Project 1 - Improve Safety at Improve Safety at Signalized Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.
Project 2: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersection.
Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment.
Project 4: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment.
Chapter 9 – Evaluation and Implementation
The LRS/AP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRS/AP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRS/AP should be reducing KSI collisions throughout the City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
4 City. If the number of fatal and severe injury collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.
Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) Action Plan
Components
SS4A defines nine action plan components that are integral to any safety action plan in order to satisfy SS4A grant requirements. Of these nine criteria, seven have to be met in order for SS4A grants to be submitted for funding. The table below describes SS4A Action Plan Components and the sections of the LRS/AP that satisfy the seven relevant components.
Action Plan Component Section
1. Leadership Commitment and
Goal Setting N/A
2. Planning Structure Ch-2, Ch-9
3. Safety Analysis Ch-4
4. Engagement and Collaboration Ch-2
5. Equity Considerations Ch-6
6. Policy and Process Changes N/A
7. Strategy and Project Selections Ch-7, Ch-8
8. Progress and Transparency
Ch-9 and Mendocino Council of
Governments (MCOG) website
https://www.mendocinocog.org/
9. Action Plan Adoption Date August 2024
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
5 1. INTRODUCTION
The Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) is assisting with updating the comprehensive Local Road Safety/Action Plan (LRS/AP) for the City of Fort Bragg.
The updated LRS/AP would enable Fort Bragg to enhance safety for all modes of transportation and all ages and abilities.
What is a LRS/AP?
The Local Road Safety/Action Plan (LRS/AP) is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique highway safety needs and reduce the number of KSI collisions. The LRS/AP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, and recommend safety projects and countermeasures. The LRS/AP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for HSIP and SS4A funding.
The LRS/AP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, community needs, and priorities.
Vision and Goals of the LRS/AP
Goal #1: Systematically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend improvements
Goal #2: Improve the safety of all road users by using proven effective countermeasures
Goal #3: Ensure coordination and response of key stakeholders to implement roadway safety improvements within Fort Bragg
Goal #4: Serve as a resource for staff who continually seek funding for safety improvements
Goal #5: Recommend how safety improvements can be made in a manner that is fair and equitable for all Fort Bragg residents
Study Area
The City of Fort Bragg is located in Mendocino County, California, covering a total area of about 2.931 square miles. It is the located on the Pacific Ocean coast, 24 miles west of the City of Willits, at an elevation of 85 feet. The City’s estimated population is 6,983 (as of 2020 census). The City is accessible via California State Route/Highway 1 (SR 1) and California State Route/Highway 20 (SR 20). Figure 1 shows the study area.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
6 Figure 1. Study Area: City of Fort Bragg
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
7 2. Safety Partners
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRS/AP. For the City of Fort Bragg, these include representatives from Public Works, Police Department, Fire Department, School District, Caltrans District 1, and other interested citizens and community members. Three stakeholder meetings among these departments/agencies were conducted to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group during the project timeline.
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website (www.mendoroadsafetyplan.com), with an interactive map input platform. Project related information was also published on the City’s website and handouts made available at City Hall. As part of the project website, a public input platform called maptionnaire was published online and advertised on social media to solicit input public comments regarding traffic safety.
A total of 46 comments were submitted for the City of Fort Bragg from February 18, 2024 to June 30, 2024. A list of all public comments is included in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows landing page of LRS/AP website and Figure 3 shows the location of the public comment on the map.
Figure 2. Project Website
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
8 Figure 3. Public Comments Map – City of Fort Bragg
The most common commented traffic safety issue was speeding. Willow Street was the most commented street, followed by Main Street/Highway 1 (SR 1) and E Chestnut Street. Main Street/Highway 1 (SR 1) was referred to the most as the street with pedestrian and bicycle safety issues, with five comments combined. Figure 4 refers to the summary of public outreach by location and pertinent issue per location.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
9 Figure 4. City of Fort Bragg - Public Comments
Note: This summary does not list corridors with less than two comments. Categories with less than two comments are not included in this graph. Each comment was assigned to the major road if at an intersection.
In addition, five Public Workshops, three virtual and two in-person (in Fort Bragg and Ukiah), were held to introduce the project, present data information and recommendations, and provide a forum for comments and feedback.
Leadership Commitment to Road Safety
The City of Fort Bragg is deeply committed to enhancing road safety and significantly reducing traffic fatalities and severe injuries for all road users. Recognizing the vital importance of safe streets, the City has made it a top priority to create a safer transportation environment for residents and visitors alike.
This dedication to improving road safety is rooted in Fort Bragg's core values of prioritizing the well-being and quality of life for all community members, whether they drive, walk, bike, or use public transit.
To achieve these road safety goals, the City of Fort Bragg is implementing a multifaceted, evidence-based approach that addresses the various factors contributing to traffic incidents. This strategy includes:
Infrastructure improvements to enhance road design and safety features Public awareness campaigns to educate residents on safe road use practices Collaboration with local law enforcement to ensure traffic laws are effectively upheld
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Willow StMain StE Chestnut StE Pine StS Lincoln StSouth StW Elm StMaple StN Harrison StE Redwood AveE Laurel St Speeding Pedestrian Safety School Safety Pavement Conditions Intersection Safety Bicycle Safety Narrow Street Limited visibility City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
10 By adopting this comprehensive approach, the City is confident it can make substantial progress in reducing serious injuries and fatalities on Fort Bragg's streets.
The City Council and leadership team are fully committed to this safety initiative and have dedicated the necessary resources to drive meaningful change. Regular assessment of progress, analysis of traffic data, and engagement with community stakeholders will ensure Fort Bragg stays on course to meet its safety objectives.
Through this steadfast commitment, Fort Bragg aims to create a model for other coastal communities in California, demonstrating how a small city can make big strides in creating safer streets for everyone.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a committee of Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), will serve as the body to review and monitor the recommendations and Safety Project implementation and construction. The TAC consists of nine (9) voting members or their authorized technical representatives, as follows: the County Director of Transportation, the County Director of Planning & Building Services, the Mendocino Transit Authority General Manager, the Caltrans Transportation Planning Branch Chief, one technical representative appointed by each of the four cities, and the County Air Pollution Control Officer. Additionally, one (1) nonvoting member shall be a rail representative appointed by North Coast Railroad Authority. TAC meetings are typically once a month.
The nine (9) voting members or their authorized technical representatives of TAC consists as follows:
Agency
City of Ukiah
City of Willits
City of Fort Bragg
City of Point Arena
Mendocino County Department of Transportation
Mendocino County Planning & Building Services
Mendocino Transit Authority
Caltrans
Air Quality Management District
The TAC will ensure a comprehensive and equitable approach to safety improvements by fostering interagency coordination and community engagement. Regular monitoring and evaluation of safety metrics will allow for adaptive management, City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
11 enabling the team to adjust strategies as needed. In addition, Fort Bragg’s Public Works Department will also be accountable for the progress made toward the plan goals.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
12 3. Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Fort Bragg LRS/AP The purpose of this review is to ensure the LRS/AP vision, goals, and E’s strategies are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects, and non-infrastructure programs. The documents reviewed are listed below:
City of Fort Bragg FY 2023-2024 Budget
2018 Street Safety Plan
City of Trails: Supplemental Trail Feasibility Studies (2017) City of Trails: Trails Feasibility Study (2016)
Inland General Plan (2012)
Mill Site Specific Plan (2012)
South Main Street Access and Beautification Plan (2011) Fort Bragg Bicycle Master Plan (2009)
City of Fort Bragg Costal General Plan (2008)
Mendocino County Pedestrian Facility Needs Inventory and Engineered Feasibility Study (2019)
Mendocino Council of Governments 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (2019)
Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan & Active Transportation Plan (2022)
Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014)
The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRS/AP. A summary of each document is provided in Table 1. A more detailed list of relevant policies and programs is provided in Appendix B.
.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
13 Table 1. Document Review Summary
Document Highlights
City of Fort Bragg FY 2023-2024
Budget
The City of Fort Bragg’s fiscal year 2023-2024 budget outlines the funds the city has allocated to various departments and project include street, road maintenance, and improvements. 2018 Street Safety Plan
This plan recommends infrastructure improvements that will enhance the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on residential neighborhoods, and commercial streets in Fort Bragg.
City of Trails: Supplemental Trail
Feasibility Studies (2017)
The City of Trails supplement evaluates engineering and geotechnical challenges associated with implementation of two segments of costal trails.
City of Trails: Trails Feasibility
Study (2016)
This City of Trails Feasibility Study evaluates three potential new priority trails which could be developed to expand the existing trail network in Fort Bragg.
Inland General Plan (2012) This general plan regulates land use for inland properties that are within City limits but not in the Coastal Zone.
Mill Site Specific Plan (2012) The Mill Site Specific Plan is a community-based vision for the redevelopment of the old mill site in Fort Bragg.
South Main Street Access and
Beautification Plan (2011)
This project enhances pedestrian crossings of Highway 1, with curb extensions, high visibility striping, stop bars, pedestrian signage, and strategically placed median refuge islands. It also improves safety by reducing vehicle speeds, as well as
beautifies the streetscape with trees and landscape strips.
Fort Bragg Bicycle Master Plan
(2009)
This plan establishes goals and policies, analyzes existing conditions, proposes recommended standards and identifies potential projects for guiding the improvement of the City’s bicycle facilities.
City of Fort Bragg Costal General
Plan (2008)
Circulation element of the coastal General Plan details long range plans for the City of Fort Bragg including bicycle, pedestrian, vehicle, and transit policies.
Mendocino Council of
Governments 2020 Regional
Transportation Improvement
Program (2019)
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a program of highway, local road, transit and active transportation projects that a region plans to fund with State and Federal revenue.
Mendocino County Regional
Transportation Plan & Active
Transportation Plan (2022)
Details bicycle and pedestrian improvements on County
significant corridors. Includes many detailed priority bike and pedestrian projects.
Mendocino County Safe Routes
to School Plan (2014)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program with a simple goal:
helping more children get to school by walking and bicycling including the schools Westport Village Community School and Three Rivers Learning Center.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
14 City of Fort Bragg FY 2023-2024 Budget
The City of Fort Bragg’s fiscal year 2023-2024 Budget
outlines the funds the City has allocated to various
departments and project include street and road
maintenance and improvements. Street maintenance, along with traffic and safety improvement cost along with their funding sources have been listed under the FY 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program.
2018 Street Safety Plan
The City of Fort Bragg completed a Residential Streets
Safety Plan (RSSP) in 2005. The 2018 Street Safety Plan is an expansion and update of the 2011 Residential Streets Safety Plan that also address commercial street safety. The roadways evaluated in this study are Maple Street, Elm
Street, Pine Street, Main Street (SR 1), Fir Street, and Harold Street. This plan provided guidance on
countermeasures selected for the LRS/AP.
City of Trails: Supplemental Trail Feasibility Studies
(2017)
The City of Trails Supplemental Trail Feasibility Study evaluates engineering and geotechnical challenges
associated with implementation of two segments of a coastal trail to connect the existing Coastal Trail‐South Segment, with Noyo Harbor. This document builds on the City of Trails Feasibility Study, in which the Old Mill Road Multi‐use Trail to North Noyo Harbor is described as a priority trail, in addition, this Study also addresses the feasibility of placing either a Class I or II bicycle trail parallel to North Harbor Drive. This plan provides guidance on countermeasures
selected for the LRS/AP.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
15 City of Trails: Trails Feasibility Study (2016)
The City of Trails Feasibility Study evaluates three potential new priority trails which could be developed to expand the existing trail network in Fort Bragg. The purpose of the City of Trails Feasibility Study is to identify trail opportunities that are beneficial and of interest to the community; provide detailed feasibility and development cost information for the selected priority trails; and identify permitting requirements.
Trails benefit communities by providing healthy
opportunities to walk and ride to daily destinations and recreational activities. The availability of trails can, over time, reduce a community’s dependence on cars, total
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Inland General Plan (2012)
This General Plan regulates land use for inland properties that are in city limits, but not in the Coastal Zone. The policy framework of the Inland General Plan has a long
range perspective and is intended to address
development concerns for the next 10 years (2022). The
Circulation Element contains policies for public transit, bicycle facilities, parking, and transportation for the mobility impaired, taking into account the relationship between land use and transportation needs of the
community.
Mill Site Specific Plan (2012)
The Mill Site Specific Plan is the result of a communitybased vision for the redevelopment of the old mill site in Fort Bragg that defines the framework for future redevelopment.
The Mill Site Specific Plan Study Area includes the Plan Area and the adjacent 82-acre coastal trail and parkland area to the west. The central elements to the Specific Plan’s central vision are the coastline, walkability, public spaces, a central business district extension, opens space, and habitat restoration.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
16 South Main Street Access and Beautification Plan
(2011)
This plan’s primary focus is to improve safety, mobility, and access between central Fort Bragg and its southern
business, recreational, and residential areas and to
improve the aesthetic qualities of the South Main
corridor through design recommendations that positively impact the overall urban design of the project area.
City of Fort Bragg Bicycle Master Plan (2009)
In 2009, the City adopted a Bicycle Master Plan that
incorporated the development of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes throughout the City. The City’s Bicycle Master Plan builds on the existing Bicycle Circulation Plan.
Bicycling is an important transportation option that offers many benefits to the Fort Bragg community. The Bicycle
Master Plan was prepared to direct the City’s efforts to improve the cycling environment in Fort Bragg.
City of Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan (2008)
The General Plan presents a consolidated framework of
decisions for guiding where and how development
should occur in Fort Bragg. The Coastal General Plan
applied to all projects in the Coastal Zone. Circulation Element discusses transportation issues for the Fort
Bragg Planning Area; it briefly describes the existing
circulation system, travel characteristics, and projects future traffic based on the land uses and growth
projections described in the Land Use Element. The
Circulation Element ensure that Fort Bragg’s circulation network is sufficient to accommodate anticipated
development.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
17 Mendocino County Pedestrian Facility Needs Inventory and Engineered Feasibility Study (2019)
The Mendocino County Pedestrian Facility Needs Inventory and Engineered Feasibility Study has a simple goal: to
improve sidewalks, paths, and safe crossings in Mendocino County so it’s easier to walk where you need to. This study covers all of Mendocino County; a vast amount of territory and many communities from large to tiny. This report
describes all the potential pedestrian access improvement projects identified through the review of past studies, the inventory and analysis of existing conditions for pedestrian access, agency staff input, and the public input from
workshops, meetings, and on-line surveys.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
18 Mendocino Council of Governments 2024 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP) is a program of highway, local road, transit, and active transportation projects that a region plans to fund with State and Federal revenue programmed by the
California Transportation Commission in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan &
Active Transportation Plan (2022)
This Plan is intended to identify priority bicycle and
pedestrian improvements within all jurisdictions of
Mendocino County, which include the Cities of Ukiah,
Willits, Fort Bragg, Point Arena, and the unincorporated areas of the County of Mendocino.
Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program with a simple goal: helping more children get to school by walking and bicycling. The plan envisions active kids using safe
streets, helped by engaged adults (from teachers to
parents, engineers, planners, and police officers),
surrounded by responsible drivers. The plan is the first area-wide SRTS plan in Mendocino County, designed to
serve schools in the unincorporated areas of the county.
The plan includes recommendations for a SRTS program
that will strive to enhance children's health and well-being, ease traffic congestion near the school to improve safety, increase the number of students getting regular physical activity, and improve air quality around schools.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
19 4. Collision Data Collection and Analysis
This chapter summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for collisions that have occurred in the City of Fort Bragg between January 2015 and December 2019 as part of the LRSP adopted in 2022, along with an updated summary of collision analysis spanning from January 2020 to December 2022 to supplement and revise the earlier results as part of the plan update.
The LRS/AP systematically identifies and analyzes traffic safety issues to recommend appropriate safety strategies and improvements. This chapter starts with an analysis of citywide collisions of all severity, including PDO collisions, retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS. Further on, a detailed analysis was conducted for high-injury collisions, including KSI collisions that have occurred on Fort Bragg’s roadways. After this data was separated, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on factors such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather, and time of the day. The following is a brief overview of the sections:
Demographic and Jurisdiction Information
Data Collection
Collision Data Analysis
Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis
Geographic Collision Analysis
High Injury Network
Summary
Figure 5 illustrates all the injury collisions that have occurred in Fort Bragg from January 2020 to December 2022.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
20 Figure 5. All Injury Collisions on Fort Bragg Roadways (2020-2022) Demographic and Jurisdiction Characteristics
This section provides an understanding of the demographics of the City of Fort Bragg and Mendocino County, including characteristics like the population, centerline miles of roadway, and commute to work. The data was collected from the United States Census Bureau.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
21 Population
According to the 2020 decennial census data, the population of Fort Bragg is 6,983 which is 7.6 percent of the county population. The population as well as the centerline miles are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Fort Bragg and Mendocino Population and Centerline Miles Population
Percent of
County
Population
Centerline
Miles
Percent of
County
Centerline
Miles
Point Arena 460 0.5% 2.3 0.2%
Willits 4,988 5.4% 20.5 1.8%
Fort Bragg 6,983 7.6% 27.75 2.5%
Ukiah 16,607 18.1% 58.9 5.3%
Unincorporated 62,563 68.3% 1,009.9 90.2%
Total 91,601 1,119.35
Commute to Work
According to five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) 20221 from the U.S. Census, approximately 87 percent of Fort Bragg residents travel by cars or vans to work, out of which 76 percent drive alone and 11 percent carpool. About eight percent of residents walk to work and four percent work from home. The different modes of transportation used to commute to work for the City are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. City of Fort Bragg Commute to Work Census Data Commute to Work Fort Bragg Commute to Work Fort Bragg
Drive alone 76% Walked 8%
Carpool 11% Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle 1%
Public Transportation 0% Work from Home 4%
Source: Data from the Census Bureau ACS 5-year Estimate 2022 Jurisdiction Rankings
From 2020 to 2022, Mendocino County had 59 fatal traffic collisions, with one occurring in Fort Bragg, with an annual traffic fatality rate per 100,000 populations of
21.47 for the County as a whole, and 4.77 for Fort Bragg. Table 4 shows the comparison of traffic fatality rates and population.
1 https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2022.B08541?q=Fort%20Bragg%20city,%20California&t=Transportation City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
22 Table 4. Comparison of traffic fatality rates by jurisdiction Jurisdiction Fatal Traffic Collisions
(2020-2022)
Population
3-year annual
Fatality Rate
per 100,000
Fort Bragg 1 6,983 4.77
Mendocino County 59* 91,601 21.47
California 12,921 39,538,223 10.89
United States 124,558 331,449,281 12.52
*Note: These numbers include all state route collisions fatalities Source: TIMS, Census, NHTSA
Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
Additional information on collisions in the City of Fort Bragg is provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). The OTS is designated by the Governor to receive federal traffic safety funds for coordinating California’s highway safety programs. OTS rankings from 2021, the latest available year, indicate that the City of Fort Bragg ranks in the top, meaning higher collisions rates in motorcycle collisions (three out of 76 similarly sized cities), pedestrian (with age of 15 or less) collisions (seven out of 76 similarly sized cities) and bicycle collisions (nine out of 7 similarly sized cities). These rankings take into account fatal and injury crashes per population and per VMT. Overall Fort Bragg ranks 13 out 76 similarly sized cities in California in fatal and injury collisions. Table 5 provides a summary of the 2021 rankings2.
2 California Office of Traffic Safety. (2021). Office of Traffic Safety Rankings 2021. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv_view_count=1327&wpvwpcf-year=2021&wpv-wpcf-city_county=Fort+Bragg&wpv_filter_submit=Submit City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
23 Table 5. Office of Traffic Safety Ratings 2021
OTS 2018 Ranking Fort Bragg OTS 2021
Ranking Fort Bragg OTS 2021Ranking Fort Bragg
Total Fatality and Injury 13/76 Pedestrian 9/76
Speed
Related 13/76
Alcohol Involved 12/76 Bicycle 9/76 Nighttime 15/76
Collision Data Collection
Collision data helps understand different factors that might be influencing collision patterns and various factors leading to collisions in a given area. For the initial analysis, five-year jurisdiction-wide collision data, from 2015 to 2019 was retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS database. For the report update, collision data from 2020 to 2022 is included to refine preceding findings. State Route roadways in Fort Bragg were included in this analysis. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-risk intersections and roadways segments.
Collision Data Analysis
There were a total of 548 collisions reported City-wide from 2015 to 2019 and 275 collisions reported from 2020 to 2022. Out of the 275 collisions, 219 collisions (80 percent) were PDO collisions, 32 collisions (12 percent) led to complaint of pain injury and 19 collisions (7 percent) led to a visible injury. There were five KSI collisions, four collisions (1 percent) led to a severe injury and one collision led to a fatality in 2020- 2022. Note that the graph and chart presented in this chapter includes collisions from 2020 to 2022. Figure 6 illustrates the classification of all collisions based on severity.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
24 The analysis first includes a comparative
evaluation between all collisions and KSI
collisions, based on various factors
including but not limited to the collision
trend, primary collision factor, collision
type, facility type, motor vehicle involved
with, weather, lighting, and time of the
day. Further on, a comprehensive
analysis is conducted for only KSI
collisions. KSI collisions cause the most
damage to those affected, infrastructure
and the aftermath of these collisions lead
to great expenses for jurisdiction
administration. The LRS/AP process thus focuses on these collision locations to proactively identify and counter their respective safety issues.
The collision data was segregated by fatality type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the analysis, a collision was said to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Collisions by Severity and Fatality Type (2015-2022) Collision Severity
2015-2019 2020-2022 2015-2022
City
Streets
State
Routes Total City Streets
State
Routes Total Total
Killed 0 1 1 1 0 1 2
Severe Injury 0 4 4 1 3 4 8
Visible Injury 10 13 23 9 10 19 42
Complaint of Pain 16 34 50 12 20 32 82
Property Damage Only (PDO) 280 190 470 135 84 219 689
Total 306 242 548 158 117 275 823
Note: State Routes 1 & 20 collisions are included in the analysis.
Figure 6. Collisions by Severity (2020-2022)
0% 1% 7%
12%
80%
Killed
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage
Only (PDO)
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
25 Preliminary Analysis
Collision Severity by Year
For the previously identified collisions, the number decreased from 2015 to 2019, as well as from 2020-2022. The highest number of collisions (121 collisions) were observed in 2016 and the lowest number of collisions (101) were observed in 2017.
From 2020 to 2022, the highest number of collisions (101 collisions) were observed in 2021. A total of five KSI collisions occurred in the City of Fort Bragg during 2020-2022, while no KSI collisions occurred in 2015 and 2017. Overall, KSI collisions were observed to rise from 2017 to 2019, with the highest number of KSI collisions (two collisions) occurring in the years 2016 and 2018. Figure 7 indicates the three-year collision trend for all collisions, KSI collisions, and also PDO collisions for 2020-2022.
Figure 7. Yearly Collision Trend (2020-2022)
Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions
When evaluating roadways vs intersections in 2020-2022, it was observed that the majority of collisions occurred at intersections, where 95 percent of total collisions (261 collisions) occurred at intersections whereas five percent (14 collisions) occurred on roadway segments. This classification by facility type can be observed in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions - All Collisions (2020-2022) 2 3 0
74 79
66 95 101
79 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
2020 2021 2022
KSI Collisions Property Damaged Only Total Collisions
5%
95%
Roadway
Segment
Intersection
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
26 Collision Type
Considering collisions of all severity, the most commonly occurring collision type were sideswipe collisions (26 percent) and rear end collisions (23 percent) in 2015-2019 and sideswipe collisions (26 percent) in 2020-2022, which also accounted for majority of all severity.
When only KSI collisions were considered, the second most commonly occurring collision type was rear end collisions (40 percent) in 2020-2022. Figure 9 illustrates the collision type for all collisions as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 9. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) 8%
26% 24%
22%
8%
0%
6% 7%
0% 0%
40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Head-OnSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/PedestrianOther Total KSI
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
27 Violation Category
Considering collisions of all severity, the most common violation category was observed to be improper turning (23 percent) and automobile right of way (18 percent) in 2015-2019, automobile right of way (18 percent), and improper turning (16 percent) in 2020-2022.
For KSI collisions in 2020-2022, unsafe speed (40 percent) and automobile right of way (20 percent) were also observed to be the main violation categories. Figure 10 illustrates the violation category for all collisions and KSI collisions.
Figure 10. Violation Category: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) 8% 6%
0%
12%
7%
2% 1%
8%
16% 18%
0%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0% 0% 0% 0%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
UnknownDUIImpeding TrafficUnsafe SpeedFollowing Too CloselyWrong Side of RoadImproper PassingUnsafe Lane Change Improper Turning Automobile Right of Way Total KSI
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
28 Motor Vehicle Involved With
Considering all collisions in 2015-2019, 55 percent of the collisions were motor vehicle involved with another motor vehicle, and 54 percent of collisions also involved other motor vehicle in 2020-2022. The remaining collisions include motor vehicle involved with parked motor vehicle (21 percent) collisions in 2020-2022.
The trends for KSI collisions are noticeably different. For KSI collisions in 2015-2019, 60 percent of the collisions involved a pedestrian and 40 percent involved another vehicle, indicating these collision types are more likely to result in a fatal or severe collision. Where in for KSI collisions, 60 percent of collisions involve other motor vehicle in 2020-2022. Figure 11 illustrates the percentage for all collisions as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 11. Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020- 2022)
1%
6%
54%
1%
21%
5% 1%
9%
0% 0% 2%
60%
0% 0% 0% 0%
40%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Non-CollisionPedestrianOther Motor VehicleMotor Vehicle on Other Roadway
Parked Motor VehicleBicycleAnimalFixed ObjectOther Object Total KSI
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
29 Lighting
For collisions of all severity in 2015-2019, 68 percent of collisions occurred in daylight and 19 percent of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights, while in 2020-2022, 71 percent of collisions occurred in daylight and 17 percent of collisions occurred during dark with street lights. For KSI collisions in 2015-2019, 80 percent of collisions occurred in daylight and 20 percent of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights while 60 percent of collisions occurred during daytime in 2020- 2022. Figure 12 illustrates the lighting condition for all collisions and KSI collisions.
Figure 12. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions Weather
For all collisions in 2015-2019, 77 percent of the collisions occurred during clear weather conditions and 14 percent collisions occurred during cloudy weather conditions, and in 2020-2022, 85 percent of collisions occurred during clear weather conditions and seven percent of collisions occurred in cloudy weather conditions. For KSI collisions in 2020-2022, 100 percent of the collisions occurred during clear weather conditions. Figure 13 illustrates the percentage distribution of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 13. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) 71%
4%
17%
7%
60%
0%
20% 20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Total KSI
85%
7% 5% 1% 1% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Clear Cloudy Raining Fog Other Wind
Total KSI
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
30 Time of the Day
For collisions of all severity, for 2015-2019, maximum number of collisions occurred between 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. (nine percent) and the minimum number of collisions occurred between 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. (zero percent) and for 2020-2022, maximum number of collisions occurred between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (nine percent) and the minimum number of collisions occurred between 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (three percent).
For all KSI collisions in 2020-2022, the maximum number of collisions occurred between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (40 percent). Figure 14 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during the day for all severity collisions as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 14. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs. KSI Collisions (2020-2022) 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM Total KSI
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
31 Killed and Severe Injury Collision Analysis
The detailed collision analysis is effective for identifying high-risk locations by evaluating collisions that have led to a fatality or a severe injury (KSI). Collisions have been further analyzed taking into account the following collision attributes:
Location
Violation Category
Collision Type vs. Violation Category
Collision Type vs. Motor Vehicle Involved With
Motor Vehicle Involved With vs. Violation Category
Collision Type vs. Lighting Conditions
Collision Types vs. Time of Day
Gender vs. Age
Figure 15 illustrates the location of KSI collisions occurring in the City from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
32 Figure 15. Fort Bragg KSI Collisions (2020-2022)
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
33 Fatality Type
Of the total five KSI collisions that occurred in Fort Bragg, in 2015-2019, five collisions (100 percent) occurred at intersections (within 250 feet of an intersection) and none occurred on roadways segment or at mid-block locations. In 2020-2022, all the five KSI collisions (100 percent) occurred at intersections (within 250 feet of an intersection). This distribution is illustrated in Figure 16.
Figure 16. KSI Collisions: Roadway Segments and Intersections (2020-2022) Violation Category
For KSI collisions in 2015-2019, automobile right of way (40 percent) was observed to be major violation categories and 40 percent of collisions occurred due to unsafe speed and 20 percent automobile right of way at intersections in 2020-2022. Figure 17 illustrates the violation category for KSI collisions.
Figure 17. KSI Collisions: Violation Category (2020-2022) 5 Roadway Segment
Intersection
20%
40%
20% 20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
DUI Unsafe Speed Following Too Closely Automobile Right of Way City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
34 Collision Type and Violation Category
For all collisions that led to a fatality or severe injury, the most common violation types were unsafe speed, following too closely which lead to rear end collisions in 2020 to 2022. Figure 18 illustrates the type of collision as well as the violation category for KSI collisions.
Figure 18. KSI Collisions: Collision Type Vs Violation Category (2020-2022) Collision Type and Motor Vehicle Involved With
For all KSI collisions, the collision types include rear end and broadside collisions that occurred between two motor vehicles in 2020-2022. Figure 19 illustrates the type of collision as well as the motor vehicle involved with for KSI collisions.
Figure 19. KSI Collisions: Type and Motor Vehicle Involved with (2020-2022) 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
DUI Unsafe Speed Following Too Closely Automobile Right of Way Rear End Broadside Hit Object Other
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Rear End Broadside Hit Object Other
Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
35 Motor Vehicle Involved with and Violation Category
For all collisions that led to a fatality or severe injury, the collision violation category of collisions that led to the highest amount of collisions was automobile right of way collisions and unsafe speed collisions in 2020-2022. The results, with violation category and motor vehicle involved with, are shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved with vs Violation Category (2020-2022)
Collision Type and Lighting Conditions
For all KSI collisions in 2015-2019, four collisions occurred in the daylight. The only collision that occurred in the dark was a vehicle/pedestrian collision. For all KSI in 2020-2022, three collisions occurred in daylight. One hit-object collision occurred in dark. Figure 21 illustrates the lighting condition and the collision type as observed for KSI collisions.
Figure 21. KSI Collisions: Collision Type Vs Lighting Conditions (2020-2022) 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
DUI Unsafe Speed Following Too Closely Automobile Right of Way Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Rear End Broadside Hit Object Other
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
36 Collision Type and Time of the Day
For all the KSI collisions in 2015-2019, the most common collision type was vehiclepedestrian collisions, which occurred throughout the day.
For all the KSI collisions, the collision type was rear end, broadside and hit object type collisions, which occurred between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in 2020-2022. The rear end collisions occurred during the afternoon at 1:00 p.m.
Figure 22 illustrates the collision type by the time of the day for all KSI collisions.
Figure 22. KSI Collisions: Collisions Type vs Time of the Day (2020-2022) 0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
1:00 PM 2:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Rear End Broadside Hit Object Other
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
37 Geographic Collision Analysis (2020-2022)
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections in the City of Fort Bragg.
The above collision analysis was used to identify five main collision factors that highlight the top collision trends in the City of Fort Bragg. These five collision factors were identified to be Sideswipe Collisions, Automobile Right of Way Collisions, Improper Turning Collisions, Rear End Collisions, and Nighttime Collisions.
Sideswipe Collisions
For total collisions, 26 percent of collisions were sideswipe collisions, compared to zero percent for KSI collisions, meaning pedestrian collisions are more likely to result in a PDO or severity other than fatal or severe injury. Figure 23 shows the distribution of sideswipe collisions throughout the City of Fort Bragg between 2020 and 2022.
State Route/Highway 1, East Alder Street and North Harbor Drive have a higher concentration of sideswipe collisions, compared to other roads in Fort Bragg.
Automobile Right of Way Collisions
For total collisions, 18 percent of collisions were automobile right of way collisions which is highest among other violation categories. Figure 24 shows the distribution of automobile right of way collisions throughout Fort Bragg between 2020 and 2022.
State Route/Highway 1, East Alder Street, East Chestnut Street, and North Harrison Street have a higher concentration of automobile right of way collisions, compared to other Fort Bragg roads.
Improper Turning Collisions
For total collisions, 16 percent of collisions were unsafe speed collisions. Figure 25 shows the distribution of unsafe speed collisions throughout Fort Bragg between 2020 and 2022. North Harbor Drive and State Route/Highway 20 have a higher concentration of improper turning collisions compared to other Fort Bragg roads.
Rear End Collisions
For KSI collisions, 40 percent of collisions were rear collisions which is highest among other type of collisions in Fort Bragg. Figure 26 shows the distribution of rear end collisions throughout Fort Bragg between 2020 and 2022. Highway 1 and N Franklin Street and N Harbor Drive have a higher concentration of rear end collisions, compared to other Fort Bragg roads.
Nighttime Collisions
For total collisions, 29 percent of collisions were nighttime collisions. Figure 27 shows the distribution of broadside collisions throughout Fort Bragg between 2020 and 2022.
State Route/Highway 1, South Franklin Drive and East Redwood Avenue have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions, compared to other Fort Bragg roads.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
38 Figure 23. Sideswipe Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
39 Figure 24. Automobile Right of Way Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
40 Figure 25. Improper Turning Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
41 Figure 26. Rear End Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
42 Figure 27. Nighttime Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
43 Collision Severity Weight
A collision severity weight was used to identify the high severity collision network, using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of PDO collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 12 application. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 12
Collision Severity EPDO Score
Fatal and Severe Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 12 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all KSI collisions regardless of location The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot-spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Fort Bragg were geolocated onto Fort Bragg’s road network. Figure 28 shows the location and geographic concentration of collisions by their EPDO score.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
44 Figure 28. Fort Bragg EPDO Score (2020-2022)
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
45 High-Injury Locations
Following the detailed collision analysis in the previous sections, the next step is to identify the high-risk roadway segments and intersections in the City of Willits. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is methodology used calculating the EPDO Score of roadways in the City.
Figure 29 shows the top six high-collision corridors, and top eight high-collision intersections for 2015-2019 analysis.
Figure 30 shows the top five high-collision corridors, and top five high-collision intersections for 2020-2022 analysis.
For the purposes of the identification of the high collision network, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it and roadways include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred occur directly at an intersection, or collisions that occurred at a distance of 0 feet from the primary and secondary road as per the statewide integrated traffic records system (SWITRS).
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
46 Figure 29. City of Fort Bragg High Injury Network (2015-2019) City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
47 High Injury Intersections (2015-2019)
Table 8 lists the most significant high-collision intersections identified in the 2015-2019 analysis.
Table 8. High Injury Intersections (2015-2019)
ID Intersection
Total KSI Vehicl
e/Ped
Auto
R/W
Unsafe
Speed
BroadsideEPDO
Score
Collisions
1 Redwood Ave and
Route 1/S Main St 5 1 4 0 0 0 171
2 Oak St and Route 1/
S Main St 2 1 1 0 2 0 165
3 Boat Yard Dr and
Route 20 1 1 0 1 0 0 165
4 Pine St and Route 1/
S Main St 1 1 1 0 0 0 165
5 South St and Route 1/
S Main St 1 1 0 1 0 1 165
6 Boat Yard Dr and
Route 1/ S Main St 3 0 0 1 0 1 28
7 Route 1 and Route 20 3 0 0 0 3 0 23
8 Cypress St and Route
1/
S Main St
3 0 1 0 0 1 18
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
48 High Injury Corridors (2015-2019)
Table 9 lists the most prominent high-collision corridors identified in the 2015-2019 analysis.
Table 9. High Injury Corridors (2015-2019)
ID Corridors
Total KSI Vehicle/
Ped
Auto
R/W
Unsafe
Speed Broadside Length
(miles)
EPDO
Score
Collisions
A
Main St/Route 1:
Jane Ln to Highway
20/ Fort Bragg
Willits Rd
29 1 2 5 6 6 3.6 383
B
Highway 20/ Fort
Bragg Willits Rd:
Route 1 to South
Harbor Dr
1 1 0 1 0 0 0.1 165
C
Redwood Ave:
West Terminus to
North Whipple St
5 0 4 0 0 0 0.3 35
D
Franklin St: Laurel
St to E Chestnut St 3 0 0 0 0 2 0.6 23
E
Fort Bragg
Sherwood Rd:
California Way to
Dana St
1 0 0 1 0 0 0.2 11
F
River Dr/ Kemppe
Way: South St to
Cypress St
1 0 1 0 0 0 0.3 11
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
49 Figure 30. City of Fort Bragg High Injury Network (2020-2022) City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
50 High Injury Intersection (2020-2022)
A total of five intersections were identified as high injury intersections for 2020-2022 collision data. There were a total of five KSI collisions that occurred at these intersections. The intersection of E/W Oak Street and S Main Street has the highest EPDO score. Table 10 lists the most significant high-collision intersections identified in the 2020-2022 analysis.
Table 10. High Injury Intersections (2020-2022)
ID Intersection Total Killed Severe
Injury
KSI
Collisions
Pedestrian
/ Bicycle
EPDO
Score
1 E/W Oak St &
S Main St 7 0 1 1 4 206
2 E/W Bush St & N Main
St 3 0 1 1 0 182
3 E Chestnut St & S
Franklin St 2 0 1 1 0 171
4 E Pine St & N Corry St 1 1 0 1 0 165
5 Walnut St & S Main St 1 0 1 1 0 165
High Injury Corridors (2020-2022)
In 2020-2022 analysis, five corridors were identified as high injury corridors. There were a total five KSI collisions on these corridors. The corridor with the highest number of injury collisions is S Main Street from Fort Bragg City Limits to E Oak Street. Table 11 lists the most prominent high-collision corridors identified in the 2020-2022 analysis.
Table 11. High Injury Corridors (2020-2022)
ID Corridors
Total
Injury
Collisions
Killed Severe
Injury
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
Length
(miles)
EPDO
Score
A S Main St: Fort Bragg
City Limits to E Oak St
9 0 1 3 1 233
B N Harbor Dr: S Main St
to Woodward St
3 0 1 1 0.8 182
C
W Oak: North Main St to
Cheif Celeri Dr 2 0 1 0 0.2 171
D
E Pine St: North Main St
to N Harold St 1 1 0 0 0.3 165
E
W Bush: North Main St
to West St 1 0 1 0 0.1 165
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
51 5. Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas are focus areas that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within Fort Bragg. Emphasis areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at these high injury locations. In addition, traffic safety related concerns were heard at stakeholder meetings and Public Workshops conducted for this plan.
This chapter summarizes the top five emphasis areas identified for Fort Bragg. These emphasis areas were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database (Appendix C) where top injury factors were identified by combining the data manually.
Along with findings from the data analysis, stakeholder input was also considered while identifying emphasis areas specific to Fort Bragg.
The following are the identified emphasis areas –
Intersection safety
o Collisions within 250 feet of intersections
Pedestrian safety
Rear End Collisions
Driving Under Influence Collisions
SR 1 Collisions
The 5 E’s of Traffic Safety
LRS/AP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating “5 E’s of traffic safety”: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). While the fifth E, Equity, is not discussed in this chapter, it is still an area that needs to be considered and addressed as outlined in Chapter 6. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the 5 E’s of traffic safety is often required to ensure successful implementation of significant safety improvements and reduce the severity and frequency of collisions throughout a jurisdiction.
Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure-to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.
To improve safety, education efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement.
Additionally, education efforts can supplement enforcement to improve the efficiency of each. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high crash City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
52 locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented, addressed under Engineering improvements and countermeasures. Similarly, EMS entails strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting them to facilities.
Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Fort Bragg The City of Fort Bragg has already implemented safety strategies corresponding to the various E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this chapter can supplement these existing programs and concentrate them on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are summarized in the following table.
Table 12. Existing Programs Summary
Document/ Program Description E’s
Addressed
2018 Street Safety Plan
This plan recommends infrastructure improvements that will enhance the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on residential neighborhoods and commercial streets in Fort Bragg.
Engineering
City of Trails: Trails
Feasibility Study (2016)
This City of Trails Feasibility Study evaluates three potential new priority trails which could be developed to expand the existing trail network in Fort Bragg.
Engineering
South Main Street Access
and Beautification Plan
(2011)
This project enhances pedestrian crossings of Highway 1, with curb extensions, high visibility striping, stop bars, pedestrian signage, and strategically placed median refuge islands. It also improves safety by reducing vehicle speeds, as well as
beautifies the streetscape with trees and landscape strips.
Engineering
Fort Bragg Police
Department Ongoing
Programs and Resources
The City Police Department has a number of programs and resources to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries including a crosswalk safety pamphlet, a bicycle safety pamphlet, and an ongoing commitment to enforcing traffic violations at key location in Fort Bragg including schools.
Enforcement
Education
Mendocino Council of
Governments 2024 Regional
Transportation
Improvement Program
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a program of highway, local road, transit and active transportation projects that a region plans to fund with State and Federal revenue.
Engineering
Mendocino County Regional
Transportation Plan and
Active Transportation Plan
(2022)
Details bicycle and pedestrian improvements on County
significant corridors. Includes detailed priority bike and pedestrian projects.
Engineering
Mendocino County Safe
Routes to School Plan
(2014)
In addition to the Citywide program the countywide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is also a resource to a program with a simple goal: helping more children get to school by walking and bicycling.
Engineering
Education
Walk and Bike Mendocino
Walk and Bike Mendocino promotes walking and biking as a primary transportation choice in short distance travel in Mendocino County.
Education
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
53 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas This section presents collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, roadway geometries, analyzed for the various emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on KSI injury collisions. In addition to the collision data, emphasis areas were also identified from the feedback received from stakeholders.
This section also presents comprehensive programs, policies, and countermeasures to reduce collisions in specific emphasis areas.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
54 Emphasis Area 1 – Intersection Collisions
The City of Fort Bragg experienced a total of 22 reported collisions on the high injury network. Of these collisions, 20 (91 percent) occurred at intersections, including five KSI collisions. The following collision data is based on only intersection injury collisions on the high injury network in the City of Fort Bragg.
50%
Occurred on SR 1
25%
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Collisions
35%
Rear End
Collisions
Table 13. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
Objective:
Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections.
Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor traffic law violations right-of-way violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.
Number of tickets
issued
Police
Department
Engineering
SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestalmounted) SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
SI16RA/NS04RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
R01NT, Add Segment Lighting
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers
Number of
intersections
improved
City
EMS
SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
55 Emphasis Area 2 – Pedestrian Safety
The City of Fort Bragg experienced a total of 22 reported collisions on the high injury network. Of these collisions, five (23 percent) were pedestrian collisions, with none being KSI collisions. The following collision data is based on only pedestrian injury collisions on the high injury network in the City of Fort Bragg. 80%
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Collisions
80%
Involved a pedestrian in
a crosswalk at
intersection
60%
Nighttime Collisions
Table 14. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective:
Reduce the number of fatal and severe pedestrian injury collisions.
Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets, social media, and Bike and Walk Mendocino. Update pamphlet for crosswalk safety for Fort Bragg every three-five years.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations especially near schools and downtown.
Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
NS23PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFB)
High-visibility ladder crosswalks
Mid-block curb extension
In-road yield sign for pedestrian crossing at crosswalk The City should apply for HSIP pedestrian set aside funds every two years
Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
56 Emphasis Area 3 – Rear End Collisions
The City of Fort Bragg experienced a total of 22 reported collisions on the high injury network. Of these collisions, seven (32 percent) were rear end collisions, including two KSI collisions. The following collision data is based on only rear end injury collisions on the high injury network in the City of Fort Bragg.
87%
Involved other motor
vehicle
100%
Collisions at
Intersections
71%
Unsafe Speed collisions
Table 15. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective:
Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections that are a result of rear end collisions.
Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, and turning left or right.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor rear end collisions
Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
S16RA/NS04RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
R01NT, Add Segment Lighting
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
intersections
improved
City
EMS
SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
57 Emphasis Area 4 – Driving Under Influence (DUI) Collisions The City of Fort Bragg experienced a total of 22 reported collisions on the high injury network. Of these collisions, two (9 percent) were collisions that occurred due to driving under influence, including one KSI collision. The following collision data is based on only driving under the influence injury collisions on the high injury network in the City of Fort Bragg.
100%
Occurred at Night
100%
Fixed Object
collisions
50%
Head On Collisions
Table 16. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of KSI collisions that are a result of driving under the influence Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
safety laws regarding driving under the influence and
publicize alternatives.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor driving under the influence.
Number of
tickets issued.
Police
Department
Engineering
SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestalmounted) SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
SI16RA/NS04RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
R01NT, Add Segment Lighting
R04, Install guard rail
R15. Widen shoulder
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved.
City
EMS
SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time.
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
58 Emphasis Area 5 – SR 1 Collisions
The City of Fort Bragg experienced a total of 22 reported collisions on the high injury network. Of these collisions, 17 (77 percent) were collisions that occurred on SR/Hwy 1, including three KSI collisions. The following collision data is based on only SR/Hwy 1 collisions on the high injury network in the City of Fort Bragg. 41%
Rear End
collisions
29%
Unsafe Speed
Collisions
18%
Nighttime collisions
Table 17. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective:
Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur on SR 1 Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, turning left or right, and speeding.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor safety on SR 1.
Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
SI16RA/NS04RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a LPI
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
NS23PB/R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
59 6. Equity
Through this LRS/AP update, the City of Fort Bragg seeks to advance equity in identifying and addressing its transportation safety needs. The City recognizes that transportation benefits and costs accrue unequally across communities. Despite transportation’s ability to connect communities to opportunities, resources, and destinations, historical patterns of decisions and investments in transportation have not addressed, and even aggravated or created, inequalities in wealth, access, and health.
Inequalities in transportation safety result in an undue concentration of collisions, unsafe roadways, or severe injury collisions in communities with social, economic, or other vulnerabilities. Data shows that roadway collisions disproportionately impact people who are Black, American Indian, and live in rural communities (USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy 2022).3 Non-motorists, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, are more likely to be involved in a KSI collision than motorists. Traditional safety strategies such as enforcement face backlash for their discriminatory outcomes that burden racial minorities. These measures do not address policy or built environment limitations, resulting in safety hazards to roadway uses. Hence, a commitment to make roads safe for all users must consider equity seriously in analyzing roadway safety and recommending improvements.
It is a core goal of this LRS/AP to recommend safety improvements in a manner that is fair and equitable for all the City’s residents, in line with a federal commitment to creating an equitable transportation system that is safe, efficient, and sustainable.
Planning and decision-making processes followed in this LRS/AP update adequately consider inputs and feedback from communities with limited means or ability to participate effectively. Three virtual stakeholder meetings and five public workshops (three virtual and two in-person workshops) were held with residents during the LRS/AP update to gather insights into safety burdens faced by communities, share data and findings, and gather feedback on safety countermeasures and recommendations. LRS/AP is also guided by public inputs received through the online public input platform and feedback from the safety partners.
This chapter details how the safety data is analyzed with respect to equity-emphasis communities (EEC) to identify the impact of collisions in vulnerable communities.
USDOT’s4 commitment to expanding “access and opportunity to all communities while focusing on underserved, overburdened, and disadvantaged communities” guides this plan in prioritizing safety projects to benefit the most vulnerable of the communities.
3https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-SafetyStrategy.pdf 4 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/Equity_Action_Plan.pdf City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
60 The LRS/AP includes elements from the FHWA recommended Safe Systems Approach and prioritizes the needs of vulnerable road users such as bicyclists and pedestrians in identifying countermeasures and developing the countermeasure toolbox. The projects identified are also analyzed for their adherence to the Justice40 commitment to directing benefits of investments to vulnerable communities.
Average Annual Fatality Rate in the City
The City residents are less likely to be killed in a collision as compared to the average Californian. The average annual fatality rate (AAFR) for the City of Fort Bragg is 0.8 persons killed per 100,000 residents for both 2017-2021 and 2018-2022 time periods, which is very modest when compared to the rate for the state of California (10.12 persons killed per 100,000 residents in 2017-2021, and 10.40 in 2018-2022). AAFR has been calculated based on the methodology provided by the Safe Streets for All grant program. The calculation worksheet and methodology are available in Appendix D.
Equity-Emphasis Communities
Equity-emphasis communities are communities facing disadvantages in climate and disaster risk burden, environmental burden, health vulnerability, social vulnerability, and transportation insecurity due to underinvestment in their transportation systems.
The LRS/AP utilizes the concept of transportation disadvantage developed by the USDOT to identify EEC. The five areas, developed using data including the 2020 American Community Survey, capture various population characteristics indicating vulnerabilities as described below:5
CLIMATE AND DISASTER RISK BURDEN: measures current and future risks to an area from climate and natural disasters based on potential losses from existing hazard exposure and vulnerability.
ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN: measures factors such as pollution, hazardous facility exposure, water pollution and the built environment. HEALTH VULNERABILITY: measures the prevalence of health conditions such as asthma, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and poor mental health. SOCIAL VULNERABILITY: identifies populations that are at a higher risk due to certain social conditions.
TRANSPORTATION INSECURITY: it is the condition in which people are unable to regularly and reliably satisfy the travel necessary to meet the needs of daily life.
The EEC are communities (census tracts) facing cumulative transportation disadvantages, as identified in USDOT’s Equitable Transportation Communities
5 https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/justice40/etc-explorer-indicator-table City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
61 Explorer (ETCE). For each community, ETCE calculates a disadvantage ranking for all its census tracts. These rankings are reported as national percentiles, where a 65th percentile rank or above is considered disadvantaged.
The City has a large share of equity-emphasis communities. In Fort Bragg, EEC makes up 50 percent of census tracts, shown in Figure 31. These census tracts are home to 59 percent of the City’s 7.8K residents. In comparison, 37 percent of community population in California and 35 percent of community population in Mendocino County can be considered EEC. Specifically, the City faces disadvantages due to social vulnerability (85 percent) and health vulnerability (83 percent). The City also ranks higher for these elements than California and the County, as shown in Figure 32.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
62 Figure 31. City of Fort Bragg Equity-Emphasis Communities City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
63 Figure 32. City of Fort Bragg Transportation Disadvantage Roadway Safety in Equity Emphasis Communities
Roadway safety burdens in EEC for Fort Bragg are identified after overlaying collision data on the equity data from ETCE. The data considered in this analysis is limited to collisions leading to a fatality or an injury and is available in Appendix E. Trends in roadway collisions in EEC for collision severity, collision type, violation category, motor vehicle involved with, mode, and lighting conditions, as compared to other communities (non-EEC within the City), and to the overall City, are as follows:
51 57
83 85
23 28 26
51 69 70
62 61
48 55
38 65
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Climate & Disaster
Risk Burden
Environmental
Burden
Health Vulnerability Social Vulnerability Transportation Insecurity
Percentile Rank
Transportation Disadvantage Components
Fort Bragg Mendocino County California 65th Percentile Rank City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
64 Figure 33. Collision Share in Equity-Emphasis Community EEC saw a lower share of collisions when compared to their share in area or percentage. Only 32 percent of total collisions and 20 percent of KSI collisions in the City occurred in these communities (Figure 33), accounting for 50 percent of land area.
The KSI collision in EEC was broadside due to automobile right of way violation. Top trends in the type of collisions are rear end (22 percent), followed by broadside (17 percent), and vehicle-pedestrian collisions (17 percent).
Figure 34. Top Violation Categories in Equity Emphasis Areas The top violation categories for collisions in EEC are DUI, automobile right of way violations, driving on the wrong side of the road, and of unknown type. 68%
80%
32%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Total KSI Collisions
Share of Collisions
Other Communities Equity-Emphasis Communities
28%
17%
11% 11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
DUI Automobile Right of
Way
Wrong Side of Road Unknown
Share of Collisions
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
65 These contributed to approximately 67 percent of collisions (Figure 34). In EEC, 28 percent of all collisions are DUI, as compared to only 16 percent in the City.
EEC reported 56 percent of collisions that involved a passenger car, followed by 22 percent which involved a pickup truck. 11 percent of collisions involved a bicycle, higher than the share for other communities (three percent) and the City (five percent).
Majority of the collisions occurred during the day (78 percent). However, EEC has a higher share of nighttime collisions at locations without street lights (11 percent) than the City (five percent).
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
66 7. Countermeasure Identification
This section summarizes the process of selecting countermeasures on Fort Bragg streets as part of the analysis for the LRS/AP. Countermeasures were selected for each of the identified high-risk intersections and roadway segments based on extensive review of existing conditions at the site and characteristics of identified collisions on the High Injury Network.
Identified collision factors and existing conditions were cross referenced with the Caltrans LRSM identified countermeasures that are HSIP approved.
Countermeasures that best fit the site and have the highest opportunity for systemic implementation were selected. Countermeasures were selected not only for each high-risk location, but also for each identified citywide Emphasis Area.
Countermeasures Selection
In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a set of three manuals for local and rural road owners to present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the country. In conjunction with these documents, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM). The goal of this manual is to “maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects.”6 Although, the LRSM identifies all of California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, this document only highlights the issues and countermeasures relevant to the local roads of the City of Fort Bragg. This section identifies the different solutions for the City from HSIP-qualified and non-HSIP countermeasures. It also provides a brief description along with their corresponding crash reduction factors (CRF), expected life and baseline cost. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, is included as Appendix F.
The countermeasures have been divided into the following categories:
Signalized Intersections (SI) – countermeasures only applicable for signalized intersections;
Non-Signalized (NS) – countermeasures only applicable to stop-controlled, or uncontrolled intersections;
Roadway Segment (RS) – countermeasures only applicable to roadway segments;
6 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/localassistance/documents/hsip/2024/lrsm2024.pdf City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
67 Other (O) – countermeasures that do not qualify for HSIP funding.
Draft Countermeasure Toolbox
Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
SI03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases,
red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number. Includes adding phases,
lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at
multiple locations.
Crash Reduction Factor – 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
S21PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk
(Bicycle Box). Signalized Intersections with a marked
crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians
volumes are known to occur.
Crash Reduction Factor – 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
S22PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI). A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an
intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left.
Crash Reduction Factor – 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
NS01NT – Add intersection lighting. Non-signalized
intersections that have a disproportionate number of nighttime crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be
supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Crash Reduction Factor – 40%
Expected Life – 20 years
NS08 – Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs
or other intersection warning/regulatory signs. The
visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of
approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign
techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
Crash Reduction Factor – 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
68 NS09 – Upgrade intersection pavement markings.
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Crash Reduction Factor – 25%
Expected Life – 10 years
NS11 – Install flashing beacons as advance warning.
Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of
approaching intersection or controls at a downstream
intersection.
Crash Reduction Factor – 30%
Expected Life – 10 years
NS21PB – Install raised medians (refuge islands).
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing
distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash
history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
Crash Reduction Factor – 45%
Expected Life – 20 years
NS23PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
features). Adding pedestrian crossings that include
enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
Crash Reduction Factor – 35%
Expected Life – 20 years
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
69 Roadway Countermeasures
R01NT – Add segment lighting. Providing roadway
lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings,
which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2)
enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and
(3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation. Crash Reduction Factor –
35%
Expected Life – 20 years
R22 – Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning). The target for this
strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns
of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be
combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades
(install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD
standards).
Crash Reduction Factor –
15%
Expected Life – 10 years
R26 – Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs.
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by
motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a
visual warning that they may be traveling over the
recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care
should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.
Crash Reduction Factor –
30%
Expected Life – 10 years
R28 – Install edge-lines and centerlines. Any road
with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, oppositedirection-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway.
Crash Reduction Factor –
25%
Expected Life – 10 years
R34PB – Install Separated Bike Lanes. Separated
bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high
volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle
collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area.
Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation
measures including raised curbs, grade separation,
bollards, planters, and parking lanes.
Crash Reduction Factor –
45%
Expected Life – 20 years
R35PB – Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking
along roadway). Sidewalks and walkways provide
people with space to travel within the public right-of-way Crash Reduction Factor –
80%
Expected Life – 20 years
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
70 that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to
locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist.
R36PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features). Adding pedestrian
crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance
pedestrian safety at locations noted as being
problematic. The enhanced safety elements, which may
include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian
crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with
pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway
that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
Crash Reduction Factor –
35%
Expected Life – 20 years
R38PB – Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB). Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and
additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings.
It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to
emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are
installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block
pedestrian crossings.
Crash Reduction Factor –
35%
Expected Life – 20 years
Other Countermeasures
Bulb outs/curb extensions. Curb extensions (also called bulb-outs) extend the sidewalk into the parking lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space at key locations; they can be used at corners and at mid-block. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway.
Speed Feedback Signs. Speed feedback signs, also known as dynamic speed displays, provide drivers with feedback about their speed in relationship to the posted speed limit. When appropriately complemented with police enforcement, speed feedback signs can be an effective method for reducing speeds at a desired location.
In Road Yield/Stop Signs. In-street pedestrian crossing signs (MUTCD R1-6 or R1- 6a) are placed within the roadway, either between travel lanes or in a median. The sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. This countermeasure is used with other crosswalk visibility enhancements to indicate optimal or preferred locations for people to cross and to help reinforce the driver requirement to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at crossing locations.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
71 8. Safety Projects
This section summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the City of Fort Bragg’s LRS/AP. The next step after the identification of high-risk locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures is to identify location-specific safety improvements for all high-risk roadway segments and intersections.
Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2024 LRSM, where:
SI refers to improvements at signalized locations,
NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and R refers to improvements at roadway segments.
The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2024).
The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of ten safety projects were developed, six for City roads and four for State Route/Highway 1. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, and City staff input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-risk locations safer.
Table 18 and Table 19 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2024 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio. The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estimates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2024).
Appendix G lists the HSIP Analyzers for each project which includes the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio.
The next step in the process will be to prepare grant ready materials for HSIP Cycle 12 applications. It should be noted that while the LRS/AP projects were based on highrisk locations, HSIP applications can be expanded to include many locations across the city.
Once the desired projects are selected, our team recommends three potential options for selecting locations to include in the HSIP applications:
Select the top projects ranked by crash cost
City identifies desired intersections
Apply for various intersections citywide with more generic cost estimates City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
72 Table 18. List of Viable Safety Projects (City Roads) Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location
B/C
Ratio
Project 1 - Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections.
E Chestnut St & S Franklin
St NS01NT NS08 $32,550
69.56 E Pine St & N Corry St NS01NT NS08 $28,700
Project 2A: Improve Pedestrian Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections. (Pedestrian Set Aside) S Lincoln St & Willow St NS21PB NS23PB $60,360
N/A
Willow St & Livingston St NS23PB $26,620
Willow St & Florence St NS23PB $26,220
Willow St & Wall St NS23PB $35,600
Project 2B: Improve Pedestrian Safety on Willow Street. (Pedestrian Set Aside) Willow St: S Harold St to
Wall St R35PB R36PB $190,800 N/A
Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segments.
N Harbor Dr: S Main St to
Woodward St R01NT R28 $13,420
40.68 E Pine St: N Main St to N
Harold St R01NT R26 R28 $59,700
E/W Bush St: Brandon way
to West St R01NT R28 $32,900
Maple St: S Main St to S
Harold St R01NT $16,500
Willow St: S Harold St to S
Sanderson Way R01NT R26 R28 $65,900
Elm St: Glass Beach Dr to N
Franklin St R01NT $12,500
W Oak St: Chief Celeri to S
Main Street R01NT R28 $14,420
E Chestnut St: S Main Street
to Dana St R01NT R26 R28 $64,700
Project 4: Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety at Roadway Segments.
N Harbor Dr: S Main St to
Woodward St R35PB $275,940
Maple St: S Main St to S 16.5
Harold St R35PB
Restripe
existing
bike lane*
$89,200
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
73 Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location
B/C
Ratio
W Oak Street: Chief Celeri
to S Main Street R34PB R35PB $60,000
E Pine St: N Main St to N
Harold St
Restripe
existing
bike lane*
-
E Oak St: S Main St to Dana
St
Restripe
existing
bike lane*
-
Project 5: Citywide Sign Inventory: This project will involve and include all the parts of the city to improve, replace, or install new signage throughout the entire city. (Regulatory and warning)
Citywide Sign Inventory R22 $631,000 16.81
Notes: *Improvements are not included in the estimated cost per location but recommended at respective location.
Table 19. List of Viable Safety Projects (State Route/Highway 1) Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location B/C Ratio
Project 1 - Improve Safety at Improve Safety at Signalized Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.
E/W Oak St & S Main St SI03 SI21PB SI22PB $24,200 195.13 Project 2: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersection.
E/W Bush St & S Main St NS08 NS11 NS23PB $206,700 15.1
Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment.
S Main St: Fort Bragg City
Limits to Oak St R22 R26 $152,600 110.9
Project 4: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment.
S Main St: Fort Bragg City
Limits to Oak St R36PB R38PB $125,100 90.59
CM – countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure.
SI03 – Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number.
S21PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box).
S22PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).
NS01NT – Add intersection lighting.
NS08 – Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs.
NS09 – Upgrade intersection pavement markings.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
74 NS11 – Install flashing beacons as advance warning.
NS21PB – Install raised medians (refuge islands).
NS23PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features).
R01NT – Add segment lighting.
R22 – Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning).
R26 – Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs.
R28 – Install edge-lines and centerlines.
R34PB – Install Separated Bike Lanes.
R35PB – Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway).
R36PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features).
R38PB – Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).
Table 20 mentions projects funded by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) that the City submitted for consideration during the 2022 HSIP Cycle 11 funding round. These projects were awarded funding for Cycle 11.
Table 20. Cycle 11 HSIP Applications
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location
HSIP Funds
Requested
B/C
Ratio
HSIP Application ID: H11-01-003- Install or upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning and regulatory signs, install or upgrade pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features including RRFBs.
Boat Yard Dr and Route
20 NS06 $840
$91,600 73.63
Pine St and Route 1/ S
Main St NS06 NS21PB NS22PB $122,087
South St and Route 1/S
Main St NS06 NS21PB $32,928
Highway 1/Main Street
and Pudding Creek Road NS06 $1,785
Noyo Point Road and S
Main Street NS06 $1,505
Harold/Oak St NS06 NS21PB $88,928
HSIP Application: Install high visibility crosswalks, bulbouts, and warning signs along with ADA compliant curb ramps
Nine intersections and
connecting segments of
Harold St between Fir St
in the north and Maple St
in the south
Install high visibility
crosswalks, bulbouts, and
warning signs along with
ADA compliant curb ramps
$297,700 $248,130 N/A
Notes: For B/C ratio calculation, 5-year (2015-2019) collision data was utilized. Costs requested include contingency, PS&E, environmental and construction costs. These HSIP application followed LRSM 2022 countermeasure codes which are described below:
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
75 These projects address critical safety improvements for the City, five on city-owned roadways and four on SR/Hwy 1 (Main Street). These projects have been further prioritized based on the goals and vision outlined in Chapter 1 in order to meet Strategy and Project Selection SS4A criteria. The six criteria for the prioritization are safety benefits, benefits to vulnerable road users, school safety impact, equity impact, public engagement, and ease of implementation. Each criterion is scored separately and then weighed to arrive at the final scores for each project, as described in Table 21. A project can receive a maximum score of 100. The project prioritization calculation is available in Appendix H. Table 22 presents the projects in the priority order.
Table 21. Prioritization Matrix
Criteria Description Weight
Safety Benefits
Safety benefits are evaluated using the Benefit-to-Cost (BCR) ratio. BCR is calculated based on five-year collision data and 2024 planning-level cost estimates, as per the HSIP norms.
Projects are then grouped into three equal-range buckets based on the BCR and receive safety scores as follows:
Projects in the highest bucket - 100
Projects in the Middle bucket - 50
Projects in the Lowest bucket - 20
40%
Benefit to
Vulnerable Road
Users
Considers improvements benefiting pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, or persons with disabilities.
Projects with benefits - 100
Projects without benefits - 0
15%
School Safety
Impact
Considers safety improvements on roadways and intersections within 1/4 mile of an existing school.
Projects in proximity to schools - 100
Projects without proximity to schools - 0
10%
Equity Impact
Considers the location of a project entirely or partially in an equityemphasis community (EEC). Projects in EEC - 100
Projects outside of EEC - 0
15%
Public
Engagement
Considers projects that have garnered community and
stakeholder support during the LRSP outreach process.
Projects with community support - 100
Projects without community support - 0
10%
Ease of
Implementation
Projects are scored based on the complexity of their
countermeasures. For projects with multiple countermeasures, the lowest category score is applied.
High-ease improvements like signs, lights, striping, and crosswalks - 100
Medium-ease improvements like sidewalks, medians,
and new signals - 50
Low-ease improvements requiring lane/geometry
changes, right-of-way acquisition, or utility or drainage work – 20
10%
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
76 Table 22. Priority Project List
Priority Project
Priority
Score (out
of 100)
1 City Project 2A: Improve Pedestrian Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections. (Pedestrian Set Aside) 95
2 City Project 2B: Improve Pedestrian Safety on Willow Street. (Pedestrian Set Aside) 92
3 SH Project 1: Improve Safety at Improve Safety at Signalized Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. 85
4 City Project 1: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections. 80 5 SH Project 4: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment. 70
6 City Project 5: Citywide Sign Inventory 68
7 City Project 4: Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety at Roadway Segments. 63 8 SH Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segments. 55
9 City Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment. 53 10 SH Project 2: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersection. 28 City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
77 9. Evaluation and Implementation
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRS/AP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions in the coming years. Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project.
While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. Potential funding sources are listed below in Table 23.
Table 23. Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission
~$223
million per
year
2024 Engineering,
Education
Can use used for
most active
transportation
related safety
projects as well as
education programs
Highway
Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans TBD 2024 Engineering
Most common grant
source for safety
projects
Surface
Transportation
Block Group
Program
FHWA
(Administered
through
MCTC)
Varies by
FY TBD Engineering Typically used for roadway projects
Office of
Traffic Safety
Grants
California
Office of
Traffic Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January
31st
annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available
to address various
components of
traffic safety
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic
Growth
Council and
Dept. of
Housing and
Community
Development
~$405
million TBD Engineering, Education
Must be connected
to affordable
housing projects;
typically focuses on
bike/ped
infrastructure/
programs
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
78 Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Urban
Greening
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$23.75
million TBD Engineering
Focused on bike/
pedestrian
infrastructure and
greening public
spaces
Local Streets
and Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
CTC
(distributed to
local
agencies)
$1.5 billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by
formula
Engineering
Typically pays for
road maintenance
type projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1 billion TBD Engineering
Typically used for
larger infrastructure
projects
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
~$19.5
million
TBD;
most
recent call
in 2023
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that
will increase
transportation equity
in disadvantaged
communities
Safe Street for
All (SS4A) USDOT $200k -
$50 million 2026 Engineering
Two types of SS4A
grants available:
Action Plan Grants
and Implementation
Grants
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic
Growth
Council
~$90
million
TBD;
most
recent call
in 2022
Engineering
Funds communityled projects that
achieve major
reductions in
greenhouse gas
emissions in
disadvantaged
communities
Implementation
The LRS/AP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and EMS related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce KSI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Fort Bragg implement the selected projects high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans.
The success of the LRS/AP can be achieved by fostering communication among the City and the safety partners.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
79 Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRS/AP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the five Estrategies continuously. Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.
After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure.
Pre-Implementation Data Collection
Before any safety project is implemented, comprehensive baseline data should be collected within the project area to enable future before/after comparison analysis.
Data to be compiled includes:
Collision Data:
Collision types (pedestrian, angle, rear-end, etc.)
Collision severity levels
Locations and corridors
Contributing factors
Traffic Data:
Vehicle traffic volumes
Pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts
Operations Data:
85th percentile and pace speeds
Vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflict observations
Observable road user behavior and compliance levels
Statistical Analysis Methodology
Appropriate statistical techniques can be applied to account for regression-to-mean effects, traffic volume changes over time, and other potential biases. Recommended approaches include Empirical Bayes method and advanced regression modeling.
Using these techniques, an estimate of the predicted long-term safety performance should be calculated assuming no safety improvements were implemented. This becomes the baseline for comparison.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
80 Post-Implementation Data Collection
After allowing sufficient time following project implementation (typically 1-3 years), the same scope of "after" data can be re-collected to enable before/after comparison.
Performance Evaluation Measures
The following key safety performance measures can be evaluated by comparing predicted vs. actual post-implementation conditions:
1. Total collisions
2. Fatal and serious injury collisions (KSI)
3. Collisions by type (pedestrian, intersection, roadway departure, etc.)
4. Operating speeds
5. Conflicts between modes (vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle) Supplemental Measures for Behavioral Safety Projects
For safety initiatives focused on influencing driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist behavior (e.g. education campaigns, enforcement activities), leading indicators of compliance can be tracked, such as:
1. Speeding violations
2. Impaired driving arrests/citations
3. Distracted driving violations
4. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts
5. Observed yielding/compliance behavior
Project Evaluation Report
All findings from the before/after analysis should be documented in a comprehensive Project Evaluation Report containing:
Project scope and description of implemented countermeasures Implementation costs
Data collection processes and sources
Statistical analysis methodology
Summary of before/after performance results
Assessment of whether intended benefits were achieved Lessons learned and recommendations
Supplemental policy, program or design guidance as applicable Continual Monitoring Process
To ensure ongoing effectiveness evaluation, city should establish:
Routine schedules for MOE (Measure of Effectiveness) data collection and analysis
Designated staff responsibilities for MOE activities
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
81 Integration of MOE findings into annual performance reviews Mechanism for refining project approach based on evaluation results LRS/AP Update
The LRS/AP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRS/AP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems.
Aside from the Technical Advisory Committee and City of Fort Bragg’s review and monitoring of the projects as outlined in Chapter 2, an annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E’s strategies’ progress and implementation.
A copy of the final LRS/AP will be located on Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) website at https://www.mendocinocog.org/
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
82 Appendices:
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
83 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Respondent ID LatLong Intersection Primary Street Secondary Street Comments Mode Pertinent Issues 69yls3gfg9m7 POINT (‐123.807888 39.420135) Y Main St Fort‐Bragg‐Willits Rd Pedestrians have to cross the extra turning lanes into Rt. 1 from Rt. 20, which cars often speed through Pedestrian Speeding
38obb64dnp66 POINT (‐123.802075 39.445488) Y N Harrison St E Laurel St Intersection is dangerous for pedestrians ‐ crosswalks are long (40 ft, no refuge), NB/SB (Harrison St.) traffic is a designated through street. 1 collision in 2018 (PCF was 21802(a)CVC as per Police Chief) and 4 others within 250 feet that involved collisions with stationary objects. Motor Vehicle Intersection Safety 38obb64dnp66 POINT (‐123.802075 39.445488) Y N Harrison St E Laurel St Intersection is dangerous for pedestrians ‐ crosswalks are long (40 ft, no refuge), NB/SB (Harrison St.) traffic is a designated through street. 1 collision in 2018 (PCF was 21802(a)CVC as per Police Chief) and 4 others within 250 feet that involved collisions with stationary objects. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 38obb64dnp66 POINT (‐123.805257 39.436344) Y E Chestnut St Un‐named St Visibility issue ‐ Vehicles traveling north on the alley can not see around the building to the west and often pull blindly into traffic on Chestnut, or cut off eastbound pedestrians traveling on the sidewalk. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 38obb64dnp66 POINT (‐123.805257 39.436344) Y E Chestnut St Un‐named St Visibility issue ‐ Vehicles traveling north on the alley can not see around the building to the west and often pull blindly into traffic on Chestnut, or cut off eastbound pedestrians traveling on the sidewalk. Motor Vehicle Limited visibility 8l7b4zss389c POINT (‐123.805938 39.441718) Y Main St E Oak St i crosss this intersection everyday i would like to see a ped signal Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 8ai27ewh9pa7 POINT (‐123.803927 39.444287) Y E Redwood Ave Un‐named St This intersection should have a 4‐way stop sign. Have seen quite a few "near misses" (car on car, and car on pedestrian). Motor Vehicle Intersection Safety 8v2yl2whk826 POINT (‐123.795624 39.439921) Y Willow St S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ this intersection has high foot traffic from FBUSD students, and patrons of the dog park and Community Center. There are no EB/WB traffic controls, resulting in speeding opportunities for vehicles. Crosswalks are long with no refuge islands and minimal markings. Willow St. West of this intersection to Harold St is narrow, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road, significantly reducing visibility for any traffic entering or exiting that portion of street. NB traffic on S Lincoln street has extremely limited visibility of Willow St. West of the intersection due to vehicles and a landscaping wall at the corner property. This intersection is unsafe for school foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic. Pedestrian Limited visibility 8v2yl2whk826 POINT (‐123.795624 39.439921) Y Willow St S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ this intersection has high foot traffic from FBUSD students, and patrons of the dog park and Community Center. There are no EB/WB traffic controls, resulting in speeding opportunities for vehicles. Crosswalks are long with no refuge islands and minimal markings. Willow St. West of this intersection to Harold St is narrow, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road, significantly reducing visibility for any traffic entering or exiting that portion of street. NB traffic on S Lincoln street has extremely limited visibility of Willow St. West of the intersection due to vehicles and a landscaping wall at the corner property. This intersection is unsafe for school foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic. Motor Vehicle Narrow Street 8v2yl2whk826 POINT (‐123.795624 39.439921) Y Willow St S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ this intersection has high foot traffic from FBUSD students, and patrons of the dog park and Community Center. There are no EB/WB traffic controls, resulting in speeding opportunities for vehicles. Crosswalks are long with no refuge islands and minimal markings. Willow St. West of this intersection to Harold St is narrow, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road, significantly reducing visibility for any traffic entering or exiting that portion of street. NB traffic on S Lincoln street has extremely limited visibility of Willow St. West of the intersection due to vehicles and a landscaping wall at the corner property. This intersection is unsafe for school foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic. Pedestrian Pavement
Conditions
8v2yl2whk826 POINT (‐123.795624 39.439921) Y Willow St S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ this intersection has high foot traffic from FBUSD students, and patrons of the dog park and Community Center. There are no EB/WB traffic controls, resulting in speeding opportunities for vehicles. Crosswalks are long with no refuge islands and minimal markings. Willow St. West of this intersection to Harold St is narrow, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road, significantly reducing visibility for any traffic entering or exiting that portion of street. NB traffic on S Lincoln street has extremely limited visibility of Willow St. West of the intersection due to vehicles and a landscaping wall at the corner property. This intersection is unsafe for school foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic. Motor Vehicle Speeding 8v2yl2whk826 POINT (‐123.795624 39.439921) Y Willow St S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ this intersection has high foot traffic from FBUSD students, and patrons of the dog park and Community Center. There are no EB/WB traffic controls, resulting in speeding opportunities for vehicles. Crosswalks are long with no refuge islands and minimal markings. Willow St. West of this intersection to Harold St is narrow, with vehicles parked along both sides of the road, significantly reducing visibility for any traffic entering or exiting that portion of street. NB traffic on S Lincoln street has extremely limited visibility of Willow St. West of the intersection due to vehicles and a landscaping wall at the corner property. This intersection is unsafe for school foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic. Pedestrian School Safety 69yls3gfg9m7
LINESTRING (‐123.807882 39.412409, ‐
123.799019 39.412085, ‐123.79776
39.411275, ‐123.796973 39.410018, ‐
123.794403 39.408519, ‐123.79241
39.407871, ‐123.791886 39.406858, ‐
123.790312 39.405034, ‐123.788529
39.403535, ‐123.78769 39.403251, ‐
123.785068 39.399765, ‐123.784491
39.398347, ‐123.781763 39.396928, ‐
123.779981 39.394746, ‐123.778333
39.393394, ‐123.774266 39.393035) N Simpson Ln Main St to Mitchell Creek Dr Cars speeding on a narrow road that's also shared with cyclists and walkers Motor Vehicle Speeding 69yls3gfg9m7
LINESTRING (‐123.807882 39.412409, ‐
123.799019 39.412085, ‐123.79776
39.411275, ‐123.796973 39.410018, ‐
123.794403 39.408519, ‐123.79241
39.407871, ‐123.791886 39.406858, ‐
123.790312 39.405034, ‐123.788529
39.403535, ‐123.78769 39.403251, ‐
123.785068 39.399765, ‐123.784491
39.398347, ‐123.781763 39.396928, ‐
123.779981 39.394746, ‐123.778333
39.393394, ‐123.774266 39.393035) N Simpson Ln Main St to Mitchell Creek Dr Cars speeding on a narrow road that's also shared with cyclists and walkers Bicycle Bicycle Safety 69yls3gfg9m7
LINESTRING (‐123.808742 39.408203, ‐
123.810255 39.406439, ‐123.81064
39.405057, ‐123.811217 39.404165, ‐
123.812537 39.402252, ‐123.812647
39.401551, ‐123.812647 39.399234) N Ocean Dr Main St to Pacific Way Speed limit is too fast for a narrow residential road that pedestrians routinely walk on Motor Vehicle Narrow Road
69yls3gfg9m7
LINESTRING (‐123.808742 39.408203, ‐
123.810255 39.406439, ‐123.81064
39.405057, ‐123.811217 39.404165, ‐
123.812537 39.402252, ‐123.812647
39.401551, ‐123.812647 39.399234) N Ocean Dr Main St to Pacific Way Speed limit is too fast for a narrow residential road that pedestrians routinely walk on Pedestrian Speeding
38obb64dnp66
LINESTRING (‐123.798056 39.446745, ‐
123.803917 39.446754) N E Pine St N Harold St to N McPherson St Vehicles speeding along this collector ‐ middle school located at east end, several 40 ft. crosswalks with no refuges along this school route with heavy pedestrian traffic.
Crosswalks could be better marked (lighted signals maybe) and traffic calming measures are desperately needed. Pedestrian
Pavement
Conditions
38obb64dnp66
LINESTRING (‐123.798056 39.446745, ‐
123.803917 39.446754) N E Pine St N Harold St to N McPherson St Vehicles speeding along this collector ‐ middle school located at east end, several 40 ft. crosswalks with no refuges along this school route with heavy pedestrian traffic.
Crosswalks could be better marked (lighted signals maybe) and traffic calming measures are desperately needed. Pedestrian Signal Upgrade 38obb64dnp66
LINESTRING (‐123.798056 39.446745, ‐
123.803917 39.446754) N E Pine St N Harold St to N McPherson St Vehicles speeding along this collector ‐ middle school located at east end, several 40 ft. crosswalks with no refuges along this school route with heavy pedestrian traffic.
Crosswalks could be better marked (lighted signals maybe) and traffic calming measures are desperately needed. Pedestrian School Safety 38obb64dnp66
LINESTRING (‐123.798056 39.446745, ‐
123.803917 39.446754) N E Pine St N Harold St to N McPherson St Vehicles speeding along this collector ‐ middle school located at east end, several 40 ft. crosswalks with no refuges along this school route with heavy pedestrian traffic.
Crosswalks could be better marked (lighted signals maybe) and traffic calming measures are desperately needed. Motor Vehicle Speeding 8l7b4zss389c
LINESTRING (‐123.80601 39.438119, ‐
123.80598 39.444257, ‐123.805906
39.444428) N Main St Hazel St to E Redwood Ave I ride my bike and i would like to see a bike lane Bicycle Bicycle Safety 9mb8xtd4bf3y
LINESTRING (‐123.798013 39.447995, ‐
123.798045 39.441681) N N Whipple St E Fir St to E Redwood Ave Staff ‐ Street lighting is minimal along this path and needs to be addressed. This path used greatly by pedestrians (students) from Fort Bragg Middle School. This is especially an issue in winter months when the sun sets early. Pedestrian Lighting 9mb8xtd4bf3y
LINESTRING (‐123.80208 39.444724, ‐
123.802071 39.445504, ‐123.800745
39.445495, ‐123.800733 39.444701) N W Redwood Ave N Harrison St to N Whipple St Staff ‐ With increase in activity at this park due to recent and planned improvements, drivers will need to take extra precaution in this area that includes a library, park, future soccer pitch, etc. The area will need to be analyzed; possibly need to add 4‐way stop at the Laurel/Harrison intersection if deemed necessary. Motor Vehicle Intersection Safety 8ai27ewh9pa7
LINESTRING (‐123.803669 39.445558, ‐
123.803201 39.445538, ‐123.803222
39.445448, ‐123.803659 39.44546, ‐
123.803653 39.445546) N E Laurel St N Franklin St to N McPhersonSt OFTEN see both cars and cyclists zooming suddenly around the corner from McPherson onto Laurel driving the wrong way down this one‐way street. The cyclists sometimes continue out of sight. The cars either turn into the small parking lot, or go S down the alley. Certain people do this habitually. Eventually there will likely be an accident. Bicycle Bicycle Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.805814 39.444226, ‐
123.806734 39.444224, ‐123.806724
39.443261, ‐123.806724 39.442987, ‐
123.806834 39.442969) N Main St E Redwood Ave to E Alder St Stakeholder ‐ Need to get people off of Highway 1, improve safety at the crossing of Redwood, Alder, and Oak and make improvements to Chief Celeri Drive which is frequently used by walkers, bikers, and vehicles to create connectivity to the central coastal trail. There is an existing project described in the City of Trails (and other publications) which identify safety improvements and benefits. Bicycle Bicycle Safety 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.805814 39.444226, ‐
123.806734 39.444224, ‐123.806724
39.443261, ‐123.806724 39.442987, ‐
123.806834 39.442969) N Main St E Redwood Ave to E Alder St Stakeholder ‐ Need to get people off of Highway 1, improve safety at the crossing of Redwood, Alder, and Oak and make improvements to Chief Celeri Drive which is frequently used by walkers, bikers, and vehicles to create connectivity to the central coastal trail. There is an existing project described in the City of Trails (and other publications) which identify safety improvements and benefits. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.806674 39.429733, ‐
123.805511 39.429174, ‐123.8038
39.428414, ‐123.802912 39.426907, ‐
123.80339 39.42509, ‐123.803097
39.424081, ‐123.804252 39.425167, ‐
123.803629 39.427108, ‐123.804977
39.428097, ‐123.807213 39.42813, ‐
123.806683 39.429758) Y Main St N Harbor Dr
Stakeholder‐ Improve circulation down and through Harbor for all modes of transportation. Currently only a narrow one way in one way out of this heavily populated tsunami zone. Additionally we need to find a way for pedestrians to safely cross the highway in this corridor. A traffic circle would be an ideal additional here on Highway 1. Motor Vehicle Intersection Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.806674 39.429733, ‐
123.805511 39.429174, ‐123.8038
39.428414, ‐123.802912 39.426907, ‐
123.80339 39.42509, ‐123.803097
39.424081, ‐123.804252 39.425167, ‐
123.803629 39.427108, ‐123.804977
39.428097, ‐123.807213 39.42813, ‐
123.806683 39.429758) Y Main St N Harbor Dr
Stakeholder‐ Improve circulation down and through Harbor for all modes of transportation. Currently only a narrow one way in one way out of this heavily populated tsunami zone. Additionally we need to find a way for pedestrians to safely cross the highway in this corridor. A traffic circle would be an ideal additional here on Highway 1. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.802126 39.436345, ‐
123.793063 39.436317, ‐123.7886
39.43636) N E Chestnut St S Harrison St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ This corridor is a common route to school that could use some additional complete street features as well as pavement maintenance. Pedestrian Pavement
Conditions
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.802126 39.436345, ‐
123.793063 39.436317, ‐123.7886
39.43636) N E Chestnut St S Harrison St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ This corridor is a common route to school that could use some additional complete street features as well as pavement maintenance. Pedestrian School Safety 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.798073 39.440003, ‐
123.795182 39.439935, ‐123.795575
39.439859, ‐123.795555 39.438598) N Willow St S Harold St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ Another School route. This is a narrow street, that doesn't have well marked cross walks or sufficiently accessible sidewalks as well as many blind‐spots that could create dangerous situations for the elementary‐aged children who frequent this area. Motor Vehicle Narrow Street
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.798073 39.440003, ‐
123.795182 39.439935, ‐123.795575
39.439859, ‐123.795555 39.438598) N Willow St S Harold St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ Another School route. This is a narrow street, that doesn't have well marked cross walks or sufficiently accessible sidewalks as well as many blind‐spots that could create dangerous situations for the elementary‐aged children who frequent this area. Pedestrian
Pavement
Conditions
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.798073 39.440003, ‐
123.795182 39.439935, ‐123.795575
39.439859, ‐123.795555 39.438598) N Willow St S Harold St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder ‐ Another School route. This is a narrow street, that doesn't have well marked cross walks or sufficiently accessible sidewalks as well as many blind‐spots that could create dangerous situations for the elementary‐aged children who frequent this area. Pedestrian School Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804515 39.43919, ‐
123.795743 39.439148) N Maple St S Franklin St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder‐ We frequently receive complaints of speeding and difficulty of "feeling safe when crossing crosswalks." As another route to school, this very wide right of way would be a good candidate for a road diet, street trees, improved crosswalks, etc. Pedestrian School Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804515 39.43919, ‐
123.795743 39.439148) N Maple St S Franklin St to S Lincoln St Stakeholder‐ We frequently receive complaints of speeding and difficulty of "feeling safe when crossing crosswalks." As another route to school, this very wide right of way would be a good candidate for a road diet, street trees, improved crosswalks, etc. Pedestrian Speeding
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804513 39.446778, ‐
123.798055 39.446727) N N Franklin St E Pine St to E Elm St Stakeholder‐ Another very wide corridor that leads to a school with frequent complaints of speeding. Similar treatments to those proposed on maple for complete street modifications would improve safety in this corridor. Pedestrian Speeding 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.80595 39.451832, ‐
123.807557 39.451821, ‐123.808396
39.45206, ‐123.809516 39.452082) N W Elm St Main St to Glass Beach Dr Stakeholder ‐ very busy tourist area. The sidewalk is not in great condition, could use ADA improvements, better bike facilities, and way‐finding signage to improve safety for all user types. Bicycle Sign Upgrade
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.80595 39.451832, ‐
123.807557 39.451821, ‐123.808396
39.45206, ‐123.809516 39.452082) N W Elm St Main St to Glass Beach Dr Stakeholder ‐ very busy tourist area. The sidewalk is not in great condition, could use ADA improvements, better bike facilities, and way‐finding signage to improve safety for all user types. Bicycle Bicycle Safety
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.80595 39.451832, ‐
123.807557 39.451821, ‐123.808396
39.45206, ‐123.809516 39.452082) N W Elm St Main St to Glass Beach Dr Stakeholder ‐ very busy tourist area. The sidewalk is not in great condition, could use ADA improvements, better bike facilities, and way‐finding signage to improve safety for all user types. Pedestrian
Pavement
Conditions
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804341 39.430374, ‐
123.798489 39.428942) N South St S Franklin St to deadend Stakeholder‐ significant need for sidewalk improvments for pedestrian safety.
Several properties do not have sidewalks at all which means people are walking in a roadway which is full of potholes. Walking in the roadway is made even more difficult because the amount of on‐street parking create significant visual barriers.
Because this links to the Very High Density Residential district, there are many low income earners in this area that may not have access to other means of transportation. In addition, this is the primary route to the hospital and medical services which means it is high‐traffic generating. The City frequently receives complaints of speeding in this area as well. This corridor should be considered for traffic calming opportunities as well as pavement and sidewalk improvements. Motor Vehicle Speeding 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804341 39.430374, ‐
123.798489 39.428942) N South St S Franklin St to deadend Stakeholder‐ significant need for sidewalk improvments for pedestrian safety.
Several properties do not have sidewalks at all which means people are walking in a roadway which is full of potholes. Walking in the roadway is made even more difficult because the amount of on‐street parking create significant visual barriers.
Because this links to the Very High Density Residential district, there are many low income earners in this area that may not have access to other means of transportation. In addition, this is the primary route to the hospital and medical services which means it is high‐traffic generating. The City frequently receives complaints of speeding in this area as well. This corridor should be considered for traffic calming opportunities as well as pavement and sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian Pavement
Conditions
8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804341 39.430374, ‐
123.798489 39.428942) N South St S Franklin St to deadend Stakeholder‐ significant need for sidewalk improvments for pedestrian safety.
Several properties do not have sidewalks at all which means people are walking in a roadway which is full of potholes. Walking in the roadway is made even more difficult because the amount of on‐street parking create significant visual barriers.
Because this links to the Very High Density Residential district, there are many low income earners in this area that may not have access to other means of transportation. In addition, this is the primary route to the hospital and medical services which means it is high‐traffic generating. The City frequently receives complaints of speeding in this area as well. This corridor should be considered for traffic calming opportunities as well as pavement and sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety 8cd2kmj8xt3a
LINESTRING (‐123.804581 39.432741, ‐
123.798633 39.432623) N Cypress St S Franklin to Kemppe Way Stakeholder‐ see comments for south Street, same issues and potential remedies here. Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
8v2yl2whk826
LINESTRING (‐123.795415 39.439925, ‐
123.795628 39.439922, ‐123.795568
39.439859, ‐123.795561 39.439164, ‐
123.795927 39.439159) N S Lincoln St Willow St to Maple St Stakeholder ‐ this route is utilized by drivers who wish to avoid stop signs, resulting in speeding vehicles whipping around the corner in this area that is prone to significant amounts of pedestrian traffic from the nearby schools and and Community Center. There are no controls at the S Lincoln / Maple St. intersection for NB/SB traffic, and none for EB/WB traffic at the S Lincoln / Willow St intersection, resulting in a zig‐zag raceway. Pedestrian School Safety 8v2yl2whk826
LINESTRING (‐123.795415 39.439925, ‐
123.795628 39.439922, ‐123.795568
39.439859, ‐123.795561 39.439164, ‐
123.795927 39.439159) N S Lincoln St Willow St to Maple St Stakeholder ‐ this route is utilized by drivers who wish to avoid stop signs, resulting in speeding vehicles whipping around the corner in this area that is prone to significant amounts of pedestrian traffic from the nearby schools and and Community Center. There are no controls at the S Lincoln / Maple St. intersection for NB/SB traffic, and none for EB/WB traffic at the S Lincoln / Willow St intersection, resulting in a zig‐zag raceway. Motor Vehicle Speeding 8v2yl2whk826
LINESTRING (‐123.795415 39.439925, ‐
123.795628 39.439922, ‐123.795568
39.439859, ‐123.795561 39.439164, ‐
123.795927 39.439159) N S Lincoln St Willow St to Maple St Stakeholder ‐ this route is utilized by drivers who wish to avoid stop signs, resulting in speeding vehicles whipping around the corner in this area that is prone to significant amounts of pedestrian traffic from the nearby schools and and Community Center. There are no controls at the S Lincoln / Maple St. intersection for NB/SB traffic, and none for EB/WB traffic at the S Lincoln / Willow St intersection, resulting in a zig‐zag raceway. Motor Vehicle Intersection Safety City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
84 APPENDIX B: MATRIX OF PLANNING GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROJECTS
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
85 Document Highlights
City of Fort Bragg
Coastal General Plan
(2008)
Policy C-2.12 Roadway Safety: Improve the safety of the roadway system. All safety improvements shall be consistent with the applicable policies of the LCP including, but not limited to, the wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat area, public access, and visual protection policies.
Program C-2.12.1: Periodically analyze the locations of traffic accidents to identify problems and use this information to set priorities for improvements as a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. Program C-4.1.1: Consider traffic safety, the ease and safety of pedestrian movement across Main Street, and adequacy of on-street parking as key factors in evaluation of proposed roadway improvements along Main Street.
Program C-4.1.4: Consider signalizing the intersection of Pine Street and Main Street to provide adequate pedestrian safety.
Program C-9.7.1: Continue to provide traffic controls and well-lit intersections in areas with a high volume of pedestrian movement. Program C-9.7.2: Consider expanded use of illuminated crosswalks Policy C-10.1 Comprehensive Bikeway System: Establish a comprehensive and safe system of bikeways connecting all parts of Fort Bragg.
Program C-10.1.1: Complete the bikeway system as indicated in Map C-2: Bicycle Paths. Make the completion of the Pudding Creek Trestle/Glass Beach to Otis Johnson Park a high priority. Program C-10.1.2: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into the design and construction of all road improvements as feasible.
Inland General Plan
(2012)
Goals and Policies:
Goal C-1: Complete Street Planning
Goal C-2: Coordinate land use and transportation planning Goal C-3: Develop and manage a roadway system that
accommodates future growth and maintains acceptable Levels of Service while considering the other policies and programs of the General Plan.
Policy C-3.1.1: When a traffic analysis of levels of service and/or safety hazards indicates the need, construct the following roadway improvements:
o Signalize the Main Street/Pudding Creek Road intersection; o Signalize the Franklin Street/Oak Street intersection; o Widen the section of Main Street from the Pudding Creek Bridge to the northern City Limits to three lanes, adding a center turn lane; o Signalize the Main Street/Pine Street intersection; and o Consider extending Harrison Street south from Walnut Street to Cypress Street.
Policy C-3.2 Roadway Standards: Continue to provide consistent standards for the City's street system.
Program C-3.2.1: Establish standards for public streets, which allow for the following:
o Traffic "calming" measures;
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
86 Document Highlights
o Sidewalks with curbs, gutters, and a planting strip between the sidewalk and the roadway;
o Rounded street corners with "bulb-outs" at key intersections; o Continuation of the grid street system; and
o Standards for radius returns for local, collector, and arterial streets. Policy C-3.4 Continuation and Connectivity of Streets: Require the continuation of streets, bicycle, and pedestrian paths through new developments wherever possible, and require connectivity to the street grid at as many points as feasible.
Program C-3.4.1: Review site plans for new development to facilitate the continuation of streets to improve local circulation. Where streets are not feasible, priority shall be given to providing pedestrian and bicycle trails that establish bicycle and pedestrian connections to streets wherever possible.
Policy C-3.6 Roadway Safety: Improve the safety of the roadway system.
Program C-3.6.1: Periodically analyze the locations of traffic accidents to identify problems and use this information to set priorities for improvements as a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. Goal C-8 Improve emergency access to the City.
Policy C-8.1 Emergency Access: Establish an access route out of Fort Bragg that could be used in the event of damage to the Noyo River and Pudding Creek Bridges.
Program C-8.1.1: Work with the property owners to obtain temporary use, in the event of an emergency, of the logging road that begins on Cypress Street and provides access to Highway 20 (aka the A&W Haul Road), east of Fort Bragg.
Program C-8.1.2: Work with the Mendocino Council of Governments and Mendocino County to upgrade Sherwood Road to Willits to provide a year-round emergency access route.
Program C-8.1.3: Prepare an emergency evacuation route plan for the City.
City of Fort Bragg
Bicycle Master Plan
(2009)
Proposed Projects
Harold St (Maple to Fir Ave) – Install Class II Bike lanes Harrison St (Walnut to Fir St) - Install Class II Bike Lanes Madrone St ( Hwy 1 to Harold St) – Install Class II Bike lanes Main St (Oak to Hare Creek Bridge) - Install Class II Bike Lanes Main St (Elm to N City Limits) - Install Class II Bike Lanes Maple St (Main St to Lincoln St) - Install Class II Bike Lanes N Franklin St (Pine St to Manzanita) - Install Class II Bike Lanes S Lincoln St (Willow to Chestnut) - Install Class II Bike Lanes Mill Site Bike Trails - A Class 1 bikeway that runs along the entire length of the Mill Site coast parallel and to the west of the proposed Ocean Bluff Drive (see proposed cross section below). Upon development this would become the new Pacific Coast Bike Route (PCBR) through Fort Bragg.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
87 Document Highlights
Class Beach Drive - As part of the Coastal Trail project, the City plans to install a ten foot wide multi-use trail (eight feet of asphalt and four feet NaturalPAVE®) in the approximately 18 feet of right of way along the western edge of Glass Beach Drive. This trail will join the Old Haul Road/Pudding Creek Trestle multi-use trail with the bikeway system on the Mill Site.
2018 Street Safety
Plan
Install a 4-way STOP at the intersection of Laurel Street and Harrison Street.
Install a 4-way STOP at the intersection of Maple Street and Harold Street.
Remove the traffic circle at the intersection of Fir Street and Harrison Street.
Initiate dialogue and negotiations with Caltrans regarding pedestrian safety on Main Street. The focus of these efforts should be:
o The intersection of Redwood Avenue and N Main Street with the recommendation of an advanced pedestrian timing at signal; and o The intersection of Pine Street and N Main Street with the recommendation of enhanced pedestrian crosswalk.
Maple Street:
Lane Striping (Optional) – Convert from dashed yellow to double yellow to emphasize No Passing.
Narrow Through Lanes – Narrow travel lanes from 12 feet to 11 feet as shown in the cross-section. The cross-section would include eight feet dedicated to parking and five feet for bike lanes on both sides together with the 11-foot travel lanes.
Green Bike Lane Legend (Optional) – Where there is a bike lane symbol, install a green background. The green markings would consist of paving materials that would not result in a slippery surface per the Ride-A-Way Colored Coatings Specifications. Ride-A-Way product brochure and specification details are included in Appendix E. No Parking – Extend parking prohibitions on “block ends” where frontage housing does not have garage access. At these locations, the bike lane would move closer to the curb frontage. A striped buffer would be installed between the bike lane and the travel lane at these locations.
Markings at Alleys – Add cross-hatched striping in the parking lane at alley intersections.
All-Way Stop-Control – Create all-way stop controls at the Maple Street intersections with Whipple Street and Lincoln Street. The City may consider an additional all-way stop control at Harold Street based on a recommended citywide review of stop signs on the grid system (see Next Steps).
Marked crosswalks – Add north-south marked crosswalks at locations with new all-way stop controls, Whipple Street and Harold Street (there are already marked crosswalks at the intersection of Maple Street/Lincoln Street).
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
88 Document Highlights
Bulb-outs/Curb Extensions – Add striped (painted) bulb-outs on Maple Street at the proposed crosswalk locations, except at Harold Street where a physical concrete bulb-out already exists. Maple Street/Franklin Street – Add high visibility ladder crosswalks on both the north and south legs of the intersection. Add advance yield markings (shark’s teeth) and pedestrian warning signs on both Franklin Street approaches.
Elm Street:
Bike Cross Markings (Optional) – Add green NACTO-type bike lane crossing markings at the intersections with Glass Beach Drive, Stewart Street, and North Main Street.
Green Bike Lane Legend (Optional) – Where there is a bike lane symbol, include a green background. The green markings are detailed in the Ride-A-Way pamphlet.
Crosswalk at Glass Beach Drive – Add a marked crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection along with the bike cross markings on both the north and south legs for bike crossing maneuvers from the trailhead parking to Elm Street.
Install Ramp – Install a curb ramp on the northwest corner of the intersection for the proposed crosswalk and bike lane crossing markings.
Pine Street:
Stop Signs – Convert intersections with Corry Street and Harrison Street to all-way stop control.
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements – Add Pedestrian Crossing Signs (W11) on the uncontrolled east and west approaches to McPherson Street and Whipple Street. (Optional – Install advance yield markings (shark’s teeth) on the uncontrolled approaches.) (Optional) Centerline Striping – Convert centerline striping from dashed yellow to double yellow.
Edgeline – Add six-inch edgeline striping, providing an 11-foot travel lane with the remaining space (approximately 10.5 feet each direction) for parking and bicyclists along the curb as shown on the cross section. Install a sharrow along the edge between the travel lane and the parking lane.
Bulb-outs/Curb Extensions – Add striped bulb-outs at crosswalk locations.
Green Bike Lane Legend (Optional) – Where there is a bike lane symbol.
South Main Street
Access and
Beautification Plan
(2011)
Proposed Projects
South Main at Madrone Street Intersection Improvements – median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
89 Document Highlights
South Main at Maple Street - median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
South Main and Hazel Street – median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
South Main and Walnut Street – median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
South Main and South Street - median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
South Main and North Harbor Drive - median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
South Main and South of Noyo Bridge - median refuge island, high visibility crosswalks, stripping improvements
State Route at Boat Yard Drive - bulb out, striping improvements South Main and Cypress Street – bulb outs, striping
South Main at State Route - bulb outs, striping, remove one slip lane, reconfigure other slip lane
Roundabout Option – South Main and North Harbor Drive City of Trails: Trails
Feasibility Study
(2016)
Projects
Redwood Avenue Connection to Downtown Fort Bragg –
Pedestrian improvements are proposed for Chief Celery Drive.
Redwood Avenue improvements would include new wayfinding signs leading to/from Franklin Street and information about trails for visitors.
A new parking area located on the GP Mill Site due west of Alder Streets would serve the middle section of the Coastal Trail (currently in design).
Old Mill Road Redevelopment to North Noyo Harbor – Old Mill Road is an abandoned road that drops from the southern section of the Coastal Trail (near the cemetery) down to Noyo Harbor and Noyo Beach. This report evaluates requirements for redeveloping this old road cut into a multi-use trail that would extend the Coastal Trail to the beach at Noyo Bay, and potentially beyond to North Noyo Harbor. South Noyo Harbor Trail – An existing social trail on private property leads from Highway 1 down to South Noyo Harbor. Landowners on the alignment would like to reduce illegal activities there and employers at the Harbor have expressed interest in the trail. This report recommends installation of timber (or concrete timber) steps and surfacing with quarry fines on the inclined sections.
City of Trails:
Supplemental Trail
Feasibility Studies
(2017)
Projects
Old Mill Road An existing route along the face of the coastal bluff south of the Coastal Trail would be converted to a multi‐use trail. The trail would be located on the levee top of the existing Noyo Harbor dredge pond berm west of the cliff face roadway.
North Harbor Drive A trail separate from the roadway would be implemented on North Harbor Drive between Casa Del Noyo and the Noyo Fishing Center to connect with the lower portion of Harbor Drive.
This Study addresses the feasibility of placing a Class 1 or Class II* City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
90 Document Highlights
multi‐use trail parallel to the North Harbor Drive. Due to right‐of‐way and topographic constraints along the roadway, a trail structure cantilevered over the narrow road shoulder and adjacent retaining wall was evaluated.
City of Fort Bragg FY
2020-2021 Budget
Proposed Projects
South Main Street Bike and Ped Improvements
Maple Street SD and Alley Rehabilitation
Mill Site Specific Plan
(2012)
Improvement of Pedestrian Safety has been emphasized.
Policy MM-1. “Complete Streets.” As part of the first Master Tentative Subdivision Map for the Plan Area, the applicant shall establish a multi-modal network of “complete streets” that balances the needs for safety and comfort of pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and transit riders and that substantially conforms to the conceptual street network design.
Policy MM-14. Complete Streets. All streets shall be designed as complete streets for the safety and comfort of cyclists and pedestrians, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, consistent with US Department of Transportation complete streets guidelines. Policy MM-16. Safe Streets. The design speed of streets in the Central and Northern Districts shall not exceed 25 miles per hour, with typical operating speeds below 20 miles per hour. In the Southern District, design speeds may be as high as 30 miles per hour, with typical operating speeds below 25 miles per hour. Streets shall be designed to optimize pedestrian safety and comfort, with the minimum number of travel lanes necessary to accommodate their traffic function at Level of Service E or better, averaged over the midweek peak one hour. If unacceptable traffic congestion is identified, traffic shall be redistributed onto additional streets, or accommodated with a right- or left-turn pocket, rather than by adding a travel lane.
Specific traffic calming elements included in the site design include:
Corner “bulb-outs” at most intersections, ensuring low-speed turning movements and improving pedestrian safety;
Ample landscape along the roadway edge;
Small blocks and stop signs at most intersections; and Bicycle lanes on the wider streets
Policy MM-32. Additional Traffic Calming Measures. The City engineer may require additional traffic calming features where necessary to ensure pedestrian safety.
Mendocino County
Regional
Transportation Plan &
Active Transportation
Plan (2022)
Goals
To improve our public spaces so the street, road and transportation system meets the needs of all surface transportation modes, including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
91 Document Highlights
Provide a safe and useable network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the region as a means to lessen dependence on vehicular travel and improve the health of Mendocino County’s residents. Maximize investment in non-motorized transportation facilities through maintenance.
Mendocino County
Safe Routes to
School Plan (2014)
Goals
Goal 1: Improve the health of Mendocino County children by focusing attention on and increasing active travel to school.
Objective A: Increase the number of students walking and bicycling to school
Objective B: Annually increase the number of children exposed to Safe Routes to School education and encouragement activities Objective C: Increase the number of county residents that are familiar with SRTS and resources available
Goal 2: Support school travel routes that are accommodating, safe, convenient, and “complete” for all modes.
Objective A: Increase funding for walking, bicycling and transit investments near schools
Objective B: Review school connections and potential SRTS needs during project development for all county roads
Objective C: Incorporate Safe Routes to School policies, priorities, and design guidance into future county general plan updates Objective D: Limit traffic speeds and volumes along key routes to schools Goal 3: Maximize interagency cooperation in all SRTS project and programs in an effort to build a sustainable program.
Objective A: Establish an ongoing countywide SRTS program that serves all interested schools in Mendocino County.
Objective B: Seek and secure outside grant funding for SRTS programs and activities, and leverage local funding for school area improvements Mendocino County
Pedestrian Facility
Needs Inventory and
Engineered
Feasibility Study
(2019)
Projects - Tier 1 Projects
Elm Street Pedestrian Improvements
South Main Street Corridor Pedestrian Enhancements
Maple Street Pedestrian Improvements
Mendocino Council of
Governments 2020
Regional
Transportation
Projects
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
92 Document Highlights
Improvement
Program (2019)
D-S. Main St Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Project – Fort Bragg - This project will continue pedestrian improvements along a state highway, linking to existing facilities. The project will improve access to a major shopping area, school facility, and tourist attractions.
Pedestrian safety will be improved.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
93 APPENDIX C. CONSOLIDATED COLLISION DATABASE
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME Hour_ OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T
9102902 2020 13‐11‐2020 00:00:00 2301 7/5/2020 0:00 1806 18 66 23019339637 2021 20‐10‐2021 00:00:00 2301 20‐09‐2021 00:00:00 1424 14 55 23019178175 2020 31‐12‐2020 00:00:00 2301 11/10/2020 0:00 1345 13 60 23019245613 2021 2/4/2021 0:00 2301 11/3/2021 0:00 1844 18 60 23019453041 2022 14‐06‐2022 00:00:00 2301 6/4/2022 0:00 333 3 60 23019535821 2022 14‐02‐2023 00:00:00 2301 27‐12‐2022 00:00:00 1833 18 513 23019536701 2022 23‐12‐2022 00:00:00 2301 9/11/2022 0:00 1745 17 514 23019106973 2020 2/12/2020 0:00 2301 22‐08‐2020 00:00:00 1353 13 66 23019109765 2020 14‐11‐2020 00:00:00 2301 25‐04‐2020 00:00:00 1251 12 60 23019141864 2020 30‐11‐2020 00:00:00 2301 27‐07‐2020 00:00:00 1221 12 64 23019149869 2020 25‐11‐2020 00:00:00 2301 13‐07‐2020 00:00:00 1539 15 60 23019172113 2020 1/12/2020 0:00 2301 3/10/2020 0:00 1123 11 50 23019190631 2020 19‐01‐2021 00:00:00 2301 8/11/2020 0:00 1330 13 70 23019222432 2021 5/3/2021 0:00 2301 10/2/2021 0:00 1700 17 56 23019260078 2021 20‐05‐2021 00:00:00 2301 13‐05‐2021 00:00:00 1625 16 68 23019261002 2021 6/7/2021 0:00 2301 16‐06‐2021 00:00:00 1439 14 64 23019312230 2021 3/9/2021 0:00 2301 6/8/2021 0:00 1348 13 52 23019320246 2021 17‐06‐2023 00:00:00 2301 9/12/2021 0:00 2216 22 57 23019355936 2021 15‐11‐2021 00:00:00 2301 12/10/2021 0:00 1118 11 60 23019188293 2020 14‐12‐2020 00:00:00 2301 6/11/2020 0:00 2150 21 64 23019460422 2022 6/7/2022 0:00 2301 9/6/2022 0:00 1521 15 55 23019504489 2022 1/11/2022 0:00 2301 4/9/2022 0:00 1455 14 2 2301 91414310 2021 24‐02‐2021 00:00:00 9150 17‐02‐2021 00:00:00 1740 17 22060 91287226 2020 17‐08‐2020 00:00:00 9150 7/8/2020 0:00 910 9 22276 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD 4 5 2 2301 0 0 01 5 2 2301 0 0 07 5 2 2301 0 0 04 5 2 2301 0 0 03 5 2 2301 0 0 02 5 2 2301 0 0 03 5 2 2301 0 0 06 5 2 2301 0 0 06 5 2 2301 0 0 01 5 2 2301 0 0 01 5 2 2301 0 0 06 5 2 2301 0 0 07 5 2 2301 0 0 03 5 2 2301 0 0 04 5 2 2301 0 0 03 5 2 2301 0 0 05 5 2 2301 0 0 04 5 2 2301 0 0 02 5 2 2301 0 0 05 5 2 2301 0 0 04 5 2 2301 0 0 07 5 2 2301 0 0 03 2 9 2300 0 3 55 1 9 2300 0 3 5 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION INTERSECTION Intersection_TJKM 0 RT 1 OAK ST 0 Y Y0 1 CHESTNUT ST SOUTH MAIN ST 167 E N Y 0 RT 162 CYPRESS ST 191 S N Y0 RT 1 OAK ST 259 S N N0 1 FRANKLIN ST CHESTNUT ST 172 S N Y0 1 NORTH MAIN ST E 1ST STREET 0 YY 0 OAK ST SOUTH MAIN ST 0 YY0 RT 1 WALNUT ST 224 N N Y0 RT 1 MADRONE ST 12 S N Y 0 BUSH ST MAIN ST 0 Y Y0 OAK ST RT 1 142 E N Y0 RT 1 HAZEL ST 26 N N Y0 1 RT 1 MAPLE ST 63 N N Y0 MAIN ST CHESTNUT ST 89 N N Y0 NORTH HARBOR DR CASA DEL NOYO DR 606 S N N0 CHESTNUT ST S FRANKLIN ST 0 YY 0 1 MAIN ST E BUSH ST 144 N N Y
0 1 E PINE ST N CORRY ST 76 W N Y
0 RT 1 OAK ST 5 S N Y0 SOUTH MAIN ST OAK ST 44 S N Y
0 1 MAIN ST OAK ST 0 Y Y0 NORTH MAIN ST W BUSY ST 48 S N Y 2 6 NORTH HARBOR DR DOCK ST 650 N N N2 6 NORTH HARBOR DR CASA DEL NOYO 1056 W N N CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
WEATHER_1 WEATHER_2 STATE_HWY_IND CALTRANS_COUNTY CALTRANS_DISTRICT STATE_ROUTE ROUTE_SUFFIX A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A‐ NA‐ NA ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A‐ NA‐ NA ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A‐ NA ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A ‐ Y MEN 1 1 ‐A‐ NA‐ N CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
POSTMILE_PREFIX POSTMILE LOCATION_TYPE RAMP_INTERSECTION SIDE_OF_HWY TOW_AWAY COLLISION_SEVERITY ‐ 61.31 H ‐ S N 4‐ 60.925 I 5 N N 3‐ 60.64 H ‐ N Y 3‐ 61.25 H ‐ N N 4 Y4
N4
‐ 61.299 I 5 S N 4‐ 60.85 H ‐ N N 2‐ 61.21 H ‐ S Y 3‐ 61.8 H ‐ N Y 3‐ 61.299 I 6 S N 4‐ 61.06 H ‐ N Y 4‐ 61.14 H ‐ N Y 3‐ 60.95 H ‐ S Y 4 N3N2
‐ 61.82 H ‐ N N 2
Y1
‐ 61.29 H ‐ S N 4‐ 61.299 I 5 S Y 2‐ 61.299 I 5 S N 3‐ 61.81 H ‐ S Y 4 N2
Y4
CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
NUMBER_KILLED NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUNT PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_CODE_OF_VIOL PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY 0 12 A ‐ 30 12 A ‐ 90 34 A ‐ 30 1 2 A ‐ 110 11 A ‐ 10 1 2 A ‐ 100 12 D ‐ 00 12 A ‐ 40 3 2 A ‐ 120 25 ‐ ‐0 1 2 A ‐ 210 1 3 B ‐ 220 22 A ‐ 90 54 A ‐ 30 12 A ‐ 50 12 A ‐ 90 12 A ‐ 31 01 A ‐ 30 12 A ‐ 00 11 A ‐ 10 1 2 A ‐ 100 13 A ‐ 30 11 A ‐ 80 12 A ‐ 3 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 22350 N C C A A H21804 A N D G A A H22350 N C C A A H21954 A F G B D A H23152 A N A I A A H21950 A N A B B A H
N G BB A H
21703 N C C A A H22450 A N A C A A H
N C CA A H
22106 N H C A A H
N D CA A H
21804 A M D C A A H22350 N C C A A H21650 N A G A A H21802 A N D C A A H22350 N C C A A H22350 A N H I A A H20001 A M G B B A H23152 A N E I A A H21950 A N G B B A H22350 N C C A A H22107 N H A A A H22350 N C E A A H CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT ‐A A 0‐A D 0 Y‐A D 0‐C D 0 Y‐C D 0‐C A 0 Y‐C A 0 Y‐A D 0‐A D 0‐A A 0‐A D 0‐A D 0‐A D 0‐A A 0‐A D 0 Y‐A A 0‐A D 0‐D A 0‐A D 0 Y‐C A 0‐A A 0 Y‐A D 0‐A D 0‐A D 0 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERTY ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT YAYLYAYY NYY DYAY‐
YY C
YA
YY ‐
YDYAYY A
YY F
YY LYY AYY CYY C
YAYY AYDYY A
YY C
YY A
CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN COUNT_PED_KILLED 7 00 1 04 01 0 01 01 2 0
60 0 0 1 022 0 0 1 0
1 00 1 0
00 1 0
2 10 0 07 01 2 0
01 1 0
22 0 0 1 0
1 00 1 08 01 1 0
26 0 0 5 0
4 01 0 01 10 0 02 10 0 02 00 0 01 00 1 01 10 0 0
22 0 1 0 0
1 00 1 02 10 0 01 00 1 0
CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 0 0 0 000 0 1 000 0 0 001 0 0 000 0 0 001 0 0 001 0 0 000 0 0 010 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 1 000 0 0 010 0 0 000 0 0 101 0 0 000 0 0 001 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 010 0 0 00 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
PRIMARY_RAMP SECONDARY_RAMP LATITUDE LONGITUDE COUNTY CITY POINT_X ‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.806015‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060532‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8062592‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060074‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8046188‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8059769‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060913‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8059998‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8059235‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060303‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060455‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.80336‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8046112‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8059235‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.7996674‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8060226‐ ‐ MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ‐123.8059235‐ ‐ 39.42808914 ‐123.8053284 MENDOCINO UNINCORPORATED_Mendocino ‐123.8053284‐ ‐ 39.42399979 ‐123.8032684 MENDOCINO UNINCORPORATED_Mendocino ‐123.8032455 CASE_ID
9102902933963791781759245613945304195358219536701910697391097659141864914986991721139190631922243292600789261002931223093202469355936918829394604229504489 9141431091287226
POINT_Y Fatal Severe_Injury Visible_Injury Complain_of_Pain EPDO Intersection_HIN Corridor_HIN
39.44187927 1 6 1
39.4363327 1 11 A
39.43214798 1 11 A39.44102097 1 6 A39.43589783 1 6 339.44170761 1 6 139.44172287 1 6 139.43522263 1 165 5 A39.44044876 1 11 A39.44898605 1 11 239.44172287 1 6 1 C39.43829727 1 6 A
39.4394455 1 11 A
39.43668365 1 6 A39.42521667 1 11 B39.43637085 1 165 339.44927597 1 165 2 E39.44676208 1 165 4 D39.44159317 1 6 1 A39.44172287 1 165 1 C39.44172287 1 11 1
39.4491272 1 6 2
39.42808914 1 165 B39.42405319 1 6 B
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
94 APPENDIX D: AVERAGE ANNUAL FATALITY RATES CALCULATION Average Annual Fatality Rates Calculation
Notes on Sources and methodology
Total Fatalities: NHTSA. 2017‐2021 and 2018‐2022 data on Persons Killed in Fatal Crashes. Accessed from:
https://cdan.dot.gov/query
Population, and Disadvantaged population share: Data from USDOT ETCE based on National Results, The population data from ETCE used for two time frame are constant 2020 ACS population data, hence there is no difference between 2017‐2021 and 2018‐2022 periods. Accessed from:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/ETC‐Explorer‐‐‐ National‐Results/
Average Annual Fatality Rate: Calculated per 100,000 persons. Methodology used as prescribed by the Safe Streets for All Grant 2024 instructions accessed from:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024‐02/SS4A‐FY24‐Calculate‐Fatality‐Rate.pdf Average Fatalities per Year:
୭୲ୟ୪ ୟ୲ୟ୪୧୲୧ୣୱ
ହ
* Population for Fort Bragg is obtained from 2020 Decennial Census. City Year Total Fatalities Population % of Disadvantaged census tracts
Disadvantaged
Population
Average Annual
Fatality Rate
Average Fatalities
Per Year
California 2017-2021 19894 39300000 37% 36% 10.4 3978.8 Mendocino County 2017-2021 136 87100 35% 31% 28.2 27.2
Fort Bragg 2017-2021 4 7800 50% 59% 10.3 0.8
California 2018-2022 20438 39300000 37% 36% 0.0 4087.6
Mendocino County 2018-2022 123 87100 35% 31% 2.4 24.6
Fort Bragg 2018-2022 4 7800 50% 59% 3.0 0.8
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
95 APPENDIX E. EQUITY EMPHASIS COMMUNITIES COLLISION
ANALYSIS
Equity Emphasis Communities Collision Analysis
USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer Census Tract Data Remarks: Census tract-wise data was downloaded from the explorer from the National Results section.
Relevant columns have been retained in the table presented below. Census Tract FIPS Code (2020) Location Transportation Insecurity Percentile Rank Health Vulnerability Percentile Rank Environmental Burden Percentile Rank Social Vulnerability Percentile Rank Climate & Disaster
Risk Burden Percentile
Rank
Disadvantaged
Communities Index
Score
Disadvantaged
Communities Index
Percentile Rank
Disadvantaged
Communities Indicator
60450
10300
Census Tract
103,
Mendocino
County,
California
96 21 13 64 4 3 48 0
60450
10400
Census Tract
104,
Mendocino
County,
California
23 80 64 81 47 3 63 0
60450
10500
Census Tract
105,
Mendocino
County,
California
22 86 55 90 56 3 69 1
Collision Analysis
Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Equity Indicator # Collisions Percentage
All Collisions 38 18 68% 32%
KSI Collisions 4 1 80% 20%
Collision Severity All Collisions KSI Collisions
Fatal Injury 3% 0% 25% 0%
Serious Injury 8% 6% 75% 100%
Minor Injury 29% 44% 0% 0%
Complain of Pain 61% 50% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Type of Collision All Collisions KSI Collisions
Head-On 13% 11% 0% 0%
Sideswipe 8% 6% 0% 0%
Read End 32% 22% 50% 0%
Broadside 18% 17% 0% 100%
Hit Object 5% 6% 25% 0%
Overturned 0% 6% 0% 0%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 18% 17% 0% 0%
Other 5% 17% 25% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Violation Category All Collisions KSI Collisions
Unknown 5% 11% 0% 0%
DUI 11% 28% 25% 0%
Pedestrian Right of
Way
13% 6% 0% 0%
Pedestrian Violation 3% 6% 0% 0%
Traffic Signals and
Signs
5% 6% 0% 0%
Other Than Driver
(or Pedestrian)
3% 0% 0% 0%
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
5% 0% 0% 0%
Other Improper
Driving
3% 0% 0% 0%
Unsafe Speed 24% 6% 50% 0%
Following Too
Closely
5% 6% 25% 0%
Wrong Side of Road 3% 11% 0% 0%
Improper Turnin 3% 6% 0% 0%
Automobile Right of
Way
16% 17% 0% 100%
Total 97% 100% 100% 100%
Motor Vehicle
Involved With
All Collisions KSI Collisions
Not stated 0% 6% 0% 0%
Other Object 0% 6% 0% 0%
Pedestrian 21% 17% 0% 0%
Other Motor Vehicle 55% 22% 50% 100%
Parked Motor
Vehicle
3% 0% 0% 0%
Bicycle 11% 0% 0% 0%
Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Animal 3% 33% 0% 0%
Fixed Object 8% 17% 50% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mode All Collisions KSI Collisions
Not Stated 8% 6% 0% 0%
Passenger Car 58% 56% 25% 100%
Motorcycle/Scooter 8% 0% 75% 0%
Pickup or Panel
Truck
16% 22% 0% 0%
Truck or Truck
Tractor
3% 0% 0% 0%
Bicycle 3% 11% 0% 0%
Other Vehicle 3% 0% 0% 0%
Pedestrian 3% 6% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lighting All Collisions KSI Collisions
Daylight 79% 78% 50% 100%
Dusk - Dawn 3% 0% 0% 0%
Dark - Street Lights 16% 11% 25% 0%
Dark - No Street
Lights
3% 11% 25% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
96 APPENDIX F: LRSM 2024
Local Roadway Safety Manual
A Manual for California's Local Road Owners
Version 1.7 April 2024
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | i Document History
Version 1.0: 4/20/2012
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call-for-projects.
Version 1.1: 4/26/2013
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans updated Appendix B: “Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors” to better clarify text in “Where to use”, “Why it works”, and “General Qualities” for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual.
No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1.
Version 1.2: 03/10/2015
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G.
Version 1.3: 04/29/2016
Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B.
Version 1.4: 06/08/2018
3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document.
6/8/18 - Countermeasure S22 (“Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)”) is added.
Version 1.5: April 2020
Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble, Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D.
Version 1.6: April 2022
For Cycle 11 Call-for-projects, Countermeasure S04 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NS05mr (Convert intersection to mini-roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated.
Version 1.7: April 2024
For Cycle 12 Call-for-projects, Countermeasures SI14 (Install right-turn lane (S.I.) ) and R32 (Speed Safety Cameras) were added. All countermeasures were re-numbered. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | ii Future Updates:
In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | iii Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Purpose...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities .................................................. 2
1.2 Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety..................................................................................... 3
1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem............................................................................................... 4
1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification......................................................................... 5
1.6 Implementation Approaches........................................................................................................ 6
1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies................................................................................... 9
1.8 Summary of information in this Document ................................................................................ 10
2. Identifying Safety Issues...................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 State and Local Crash Databases ................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)........................................................................... 17
2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports................................................................................................. 18
2.4 Observational Information.......................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Public Notifications..................................................................................................................... 19
2.6 Roadway Data and Devices......................................................................................................... 19
2.7 Exposure Data ............................................................................................................................. 20
2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits................................................................................. 21
3. Safety Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 22
3.1 Quantitative Analysis.................................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Qualitative Analysis..................................................................................................................... 24
4. Countermeasure Selection .................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors ..........28
4.2 List of Countermeasures............................................................................................................. 29
5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects ............................................................................. 35
5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements...............................................35
5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements ................................................... 37
5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio ............................................................................................................... 37
5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements ..........................38
6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements.............................................................................. 39
6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures........................................................................ 39
6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 39
6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations ............................................................ 40
7. Evaluation of Improvements............................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Application Process............................................................................. 42 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures ..................................................................................... 43 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ............................................................................... 46 SI01NT, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.)........................................................................................ 46 SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number................. 46 SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) .................................................................... 47 SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems................................................................................................. 47 SI05, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before)...................................... 48 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | iv SI06, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) ........................................................................... 49 SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)................................................................................................. 49 SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) ......................................................................... 50 SI09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)................................................................................................... 50 SI10, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)............................................................................ 51 SI11, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)............................................................................................................... 51 SI12PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches .............................................................................................. 52 SI13, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.)..................................... 52 SI14, Install right-turn lane (S.I.)........................................................................................................................................ 53 SI15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)........................................................................................................ 54 SI16RA, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) ............................................................................................. 55 SI17RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal).............................................................................. 56 SI18PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads ......................................................................................................... 56 SI19PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................................................ 57 SI20PB, Pedestrian Scramble ............................................................................................................................................. 57 SI21PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)................................................................................... 58 SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)........................................................ 58 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized........................................................................ 59 NS01NT, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)......................................................................................................................... 59 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)........................................................................... 59 NS03, Install signals ............................................................................................................................................................ 60 NS04RA/NS05RA, Convert intersection to roundabout................................................................................................... 60 NS06RA/NS07RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout.................................................................................... 61 NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs...................... 61 NS10, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................................... 62 NS11, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) .............................................................................................. 63 NS12, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches..................................................................................................... 63 NS13, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)............................................................................. 64 NS14, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments).......................................................................... 64 NS15, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches........................................................................................... 65 NS17, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.)................................. 66 NS18, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) ................................................................................................... 67 NS19, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.).................................................................................................................................... 68 NS20, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) ............................................................................................ 68 NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands).............................................................................................................. 69 NS22PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)........................................... 69 NS23PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)................. 70 NS24PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)........................................................................................... 70 NS25PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ...................................................... 71 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................ 72 R01NT, Add Segment Lighting............................................................................................................................................ 72 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.......................................................................... 72 R03, Install Median Barrier ................................................................................................................................................ 73 R04, Install Guardrail .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 R05, Install impact attenuators .......................................................................................................................................... 74 R06, Flatten side slopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail................................................................................................................. 75 R08, Install raised median .................................................................................................................................................. 75 R09, Install median (flush) ................................................................................................................................................. 76 R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 76 R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 77 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | v R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 77 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 78 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes)........................................................ 78 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 79 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 79 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)........................................................................................................ 80 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 81 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 81 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 82 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 82 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 83 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 84 R24, Install curve advance warning signs ......................................................................................................................... 84 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 85 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 85 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 86 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 87 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 88 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 88 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 89 R32, Speed Safety Cameras................................................................................................................................................. 89 R33PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 90 R34PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 91 R35PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 92 R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features).............................................................. 93 R37PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 94 R38PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 94 R39AL, Install Animal Fencing ........................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”................................................................................... 96 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations................................................................................... 100 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ............................101 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 102 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................ 103 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 1
1. Introduction and Purpose
The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety-specific highway training.
The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls-for-projects.
It’s expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans’ calls-for-projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency’s roadway network.
The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a “proactive safety analysis” approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the “Roadway Safety Management Process.” While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans’ statewide calls-for-projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans’ statewide calls-forprojects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections.
This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 2
1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California’s local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi-lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies’ accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable.
Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them “flying blind” with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects.
1.2 Safe System Approach
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C §148), is a core federal-aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the “safe system approach”:
Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)).
FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 3 to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal-aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal-aid funding.
The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non-motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non-motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users.
1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal-aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non-motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs. Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), it is now a ‘special rule’ under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition.
Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 4 Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E’s of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/shsp.
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response.
The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds.
For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.
1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem
Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $8 billion, while only $120 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds.
These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 5
1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification
Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a ‘proactive’ approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues.
At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in ‘reaction’ to tragic events.
The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies:
Reactive Approach
For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to:
• Recent crashes triggering safety investigations
• Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations • Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements • New funding becoming available
Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety.
Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 6 similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on ‘past’ crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes.
This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results.
1.6 Implementation Approaches
When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include:
• Systemic Approach
• Spot Location Approach
• Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual.
Systemic Approach
The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on ‘system-wide’ crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term “Systemic” used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term “Systematic” in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses “Systemic” to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.
Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 7 existing left-turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left-turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city’s unprotected left-turn phases can be protected with one safety project. • Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate-to-high B/C ratios on their own. • Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. • Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio.
Drawbacks of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Justifying improvements can be difficult. Because this approach does not always address locations with a history of crashes and active stakeholders, it can be difficult to justify the improvements. The Systemic Approach will rarely include a recommendation for a large-scale safety improvement at a single location. Since large-scale projects usually garner attention from decision makers, the media, elected officials, and the general public, safety practitioners often need to make additional efforts to explain the Systemic Approach and its benefits to those groups. Safety practitioners can utilize the high B/C ratios of these systemic projects to convey their benefits compared to high-profile, single location projects with lower B/C ratios.
Spot Location Approach
The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 8 understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy or cheap.
Benefits of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Focus on demonstrated needs. The Spot Location Approach focuses directly on locations with a history of crashes and specifically addresses those crashes. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand-alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. • Justifying improvements can be easy. Because this approach addresses locations with a history of crashes, it is usually easy to justify improvements. For urban areas, reconfiguring/ reconstructing an entire intersection can be a good example of an effective Spot Location Approach. Large urban intersections can have extremely high crash concentrations, making major changes to the intersection the only way to significantly reduce future crashes. With these types of scenarios, even the highest cost countermeasures can be cost effective. • If low-cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low-cost improvements at one location at a time. Ongoing maintenance and development projects offer great opportunities for these low-cost improvements to be constructed with no additional expense to local agencies.
Drawbacks of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Assumption that the past equals the future. This approach assumes locations with a history of crashes will continue to experience the same number and type of crashes in the future. When agencies do not account for the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean), moderate to high cost projects can be erroneously justified. Practitioners can mitigate this by using 5 years of crash data when analyzing their roadways. In addition, significant changes to land use or roadway characteristics in or around proposed projects can either increase or decrease the expected number of future crashes.
• Minimal overall benefit to the roadway network. Some local agencies use this approach with medium and high cost improvements at locations which do not represent their worst high crash concentration locations. The result can be projects with low B/C ratios and overall safety benefits that are not as high as if they utilized a Systemic Approach. This drawback can be minimized by safety practitioners who analyze their entire roadway network, propose spot location fixes only at their highest crash locations, and utilize lower cost countermeasures wherever appropriate.
The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 9 reducing future crashes or at those locations that have had low-cost countermeasures previously installed systemically but, after an assessment, continue to show a higher-than-average crash rate.
Comprehensive Approach
The Comprehensive Approach introduces the concept of the “5 E’s of Safety”: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the “5 E’s of Safety” is often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. For instance, some roadway segments will be identified for which targeted enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure. Some of the most common violations are speeding, failure-to-yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can also be effectively utilized as short-term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented.
1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies
Caltrans, FHWA and Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) “challenge” local agencies to initially commit one or more days to understanding and applying the concepts and tools outlined in this manual. Experienced safety practitioners working in agencies currently using a proactive approach can quickly review the topics in the manual and consider/test some of the new tools (e.g., TIMS) identified within it. In contrast, novice safety practitioners may need several days to better understand the underlying concepts in this manual to be able to complete the basic elements of a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. In these situations, the room for knowledge growth, internal process improvements, and expected safety benefits will be even greater, which should more than offset the additional time invested.
By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies’ unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 10
1.8 Summary of information in this Document
This document provides information on effectively identifying California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, ultimately leading to the effective implementation of safety projects that improve safety on local roadways. The document is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for roadway design and improvement or the only guide local agencies utilize for their safety analysis of their roadways.
Caltrans also expects this document will directly support its efforts in selecting local agency safety projects. The expectation is that as local agencies throughout the state utilize the proactive safety analysis approach outlined in this document, their applications for HSIP and ATP projects will include lower cost improvements at locations with the highest safety needs. This will improve Caltrans’ datadriven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and maximize the safety benefits across California.
The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 11 Figure 1: Local Roadway Safety: Proactive Safety Analysis Approach 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 12 The above flowchart illustrates how each of the individual sections of this document work together to make up a proactive safety analysis approach. These sections are briefly outlined below:
Section 2 of this manual provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used.
Section 3 summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.
Section 4 provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown to improve safety on local roads. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). The interrelationship between CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are defined and used interchangeably throughout this document.
Section 5 defines a methodology for calculating a B/C ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness at this point in the safety analysis, including: refining the project’s costs and/or changing the mix of countermeasures and locations.
Section 6 identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.
Section 7 presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well as those that should be limited or discontinued.
Appendix A presents a flowchart of the HSIP Call-for-projects application process. This flowchart demonstrates how this document interacts with Caltrans Call-for-projects.
Appendix B contains Detailed Tables of countermeasures discussed in Section 4. This table includes detailed information about each countermeasure, including: where to use, why it works, general qualities (time, cost and effectiveness), crash type(s) addressed, crash reduction factor, and specific values for use in Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects.
Appendix C includes a summary of “recommended actions” involved in a proactive safety analysis. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 13 Appendix D contains the formulas used to calculate the B/C ratio of safety projects.
Appendix E presents TIMS tutorials that are available to assist local agencies in completing Caltrans callfor-projects application requirements and attachments. The tutorials include examples for Spot Location projects and systemic projects.
Appendix F presents a list of the abbreviations used in this document.
Appendix G presents a list of references.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 14
2. Identifying Safety Issues
This document encourages local agency safety practitioners to proactively analyze their roadway networks with the intention of yielding the best overall safety benefits. When utilizing a proactive safety analysis approach, practitioners need to consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.
There are a number of information sources that can be accessed to get a clearer picture of the roadway safety issues on the roadway network. These can be formal or informal sources, including:
Formal sources:
• State and local crash databases
• SafeTREC’s TIMS website (or locally preferred mapping software) • Law enforcement crash reports and citations
• Field assessments
Informal sources:
• Observational information from road maintenance crews, law enforcement, and first responders • Citizen notification of safety concerns
Examining crash history will help practitioners identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, and also identify locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes. In addition to location identification, this data can provide information regarding crash causation that ultimately provides insight into identifying potentially effective countermeasures.
Emphasis on data-driven decisions is indicative of reliability and efficiency. The more reliable the data, the more likely the decisions regarding safety improvements will be effective. However, detailed, reliable crash data are not available in all areas. Under this circumstance, the practitioner should use the best available information and engineering judgment to make the best decisions. In an effort to mitigate these situations, UC Berkeley SafeTREC has developed the TIMS website, which includes GIS mapping tools to access fatal and injury crashes statewide. This site is now available to all California local agencies. See Section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.
It is generally accepted that at least 3 years, or preferably 5 years, of crash data be used for an analysis; additional years of crash data can provide better information. For low volume roadways and/or when only severe crashes are analyzed, more years of crash data may be necessary for an effective evaluation.
Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as “regression to the mean” and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 15 a location in response to one or two tragic crashes. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) includes more details on regression to the mean and methods to reduce the random nature of crashes.
There are some circumstances where additional years of crash data may not always be advantageous.
First, it’s important for practitioners to recognize that as more years of crash data are used, they need to consider changes in traffic patterns, physical infrastructure, land use, and demographics that may affect their projection of future crashes. Second, if practitioners only focus on many years of past crash data, they could miss emerging safety issues and crash trends. For these reasons, if practitioners sense one or more factors affecting crashes have changed or may be changing, they should consider looking at the crash data for the specific area on a yearly or 3-year moving average to expose any changes and crash trends that are occurring.
2.1 State and Local Crash Databases
California has a central repository for storing crash data called SWITRS, which stands for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. SWITRS is a comprehensive data source for doing roadway safety analysis that includes almost all public roads in the database except tribal roads which are currently not included. SWITRS information is available to California’s local agencies, although many agencies have had difficulty identifying, extracting and utilizing their crash records from SWITRS. All California local agencies, especially those that currently have difficulty accessing and mapping crash data, are encouraged to utilize the SafeTREC TIMS website to access and map SWITRS data.
This document focuses on the SafeTREC TIMS website as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. At the same time, this document also acknowledges that TIMS currently does not offer some of the features currently available in some of the commercially available crash analysis software packages. For this reason, local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor supplied crash analysis software. See section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.
Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geocoding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 16 Recommended Action: Obtain at least 5 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This data will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.
As practitioners gather formal and informal information relating to the safety of their roadway network, they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. (These spreadsheets/pin-maps should capture much of the data gathered in each of Sections 2.1 through 2.8). A spreadsheet and/or pin-map can serve as a database to help an agency identify locations and crash characteristics representing their greatest safety issues and guide them in identifying appropriate countermeasures.
The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should be reformatted to include data to meet their needs. Agencies should consider printing their spreadsheets on ‘legal’ or ’11 x 17’ paper for easy review of their data.
General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location &
Date
Source/Type
of
information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of
Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
1) Feb 7, 2010 Input from law
enforcement
Clearance Intervals
need adjustment
V1-WB V2-SB
Side-swipe
21:30 Dry, Night,
Free-flowing
R. Jones
2/26/10
Increase allred intervalCompleted
2/26/10
1) Mar 9, 2010 Citizen
Complaint
Ped Crossing unsafe
due to RT turns
N/A N/A N/A R. Jones
3/12/10
No RT on Red
(Need study)
2) Intersection “Y”
2)
3) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
PM 6.4 to 6.8
Sep 29, 2011
Maintenance
data
Extensive skid marks.
Speed of Travel?
General WB:
ROR
N/A Dry
Free-flowing
J. Smith
10/1/11
High Friction
Overlay
Preparing
HSIP App.
PM 7.1
Jan 5, 2011
Input from law
enforcement
Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith
1/5/11
Informed
Maintenance
New sign
1/5/11
An example of a pin-map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 17
2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a powerful website with tools for California’s local agencies to gather data for their safety analyses. Their Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website provides safety practitioners with California crash data (SWITRS, i.e. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and collision mapping and analysis tools. California local agencies are encouraged to utilize TIMS at:
https://tims.berkeley.edu/
Site Features:
• Applications to query map and download geo-referenced SWITRS data. • Summary tables based on data included in SWITRS individual crash reports. These summary tables can be generated based on specified data fields or spatial limits. • Virtual field review by connecting the crash location to Google maps and Google Street View, allowing the examination of the existing roadway infrastructure and dimensions. • A ‘Help Tab’ that provides step-by-step instructions.
Please note that SafeTREC is not able to incorporate all SWITRS crashes into TIMS due to poor crash location descriptions in the crash reports. Currently, TIMS includes the majority of California fatal and injury crashes but does not include Property Damage Only collisions.
Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 18
2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Both State and local law enforcement officials can be an important source of roadway crash data. The actual law enforcement crash reports can be valuable in identifying the location and contributing circumstances to roadway crashes (e.g., did the highway hardware and features operate as intended:
end treatment worked, no barrier in the passenger compartment, pavement not slippery when wet, signs visible, signal timing, etc.). The following variables can and should be extracted and compiled from the crash reports:
• Location
• Date and time
• Crash type
• Crash severity
• Weather conditions
• Lighting conditions
• Sequence of events and most harmful
events
• Contributing circumstances
• Driver Variables: age of driver, DUIs, use of
seat belt, etc.
Similar to the crash database, the information in the crash reports can be used to assist in the identification of potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure safety treatments and the deployment approach.
Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.
2.4 Observational Information
Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 19 Information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can help support all three methods of implementation approaches: Spot Location treatments, systemic deployments, and the Comprehensive Approach. Often, traffic violations such as speeding and impaired driving lend themselves to education and enforcement solutions to address these behaviors and supplement the intended infrastructure countermeasures.
Recommended Action: Add information received from law enforcement, road maintenance crew, and Emergency Medical Service observations to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet and/or pin-maps. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.
2.5 Public Notifications
Occasionally, when unsafe situations are observed, local citizens may notify the local government by email, letter, telephone, or at a public meeting. Information identifying safety issues on local roads may also come from community or regional newspapers, newsletters, correspondence, and from local homeowner and neighborhood associations. These sources can serve as indicators that a safety issue may exist and may warrant further review and analysis to determine the extent of the issues. Citizen reports can be tracked along with official crash data; however, safety practitioners should not regard these reports as factual, unless proven by other methods. Local safety databases should only contain objective and verifiable data.
Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Add information received from public notifications to tracking spreadsheets and/or pin-maps once confirmed.
2.6 Roadway Data and Devices
It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments:
• Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete)
• Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat)
• Lane information (number, width)
• Shoulder information (width, type)
• Median (type, width)
• Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.) 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 20 • Roadside safety hardware (e.g., guardrail, crash cushions, drainage structures) The TIMS site, described in Section 2.2, can provide safety practitioners with much of this roadway data virtually by using Google Maps and Google Street View. By utilizing TIMS (and/or private for-profit vendors), safety practitioners can save hours and even days of driving during the initial steps in the safety analysis of their network. Once agencies start to define individual safety projects for funding and future construction, actual field reviews are needed to ensure a complete understanding of the project location and context.
As local practitioners gather information about their existing roadway infrastructure, they need to determine whether it complies with the minimum standards for signs, breakaway supports, signals, pavement markings, protective barriers, etc. Practitioners should use the most current California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), which provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
6 In addition to ensuring compliance with the MUTCD, geometric standards for sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation should also be evaluated.
Roadway information can be combined with crash data to help local practitioners identify appropriate locations and treatments to improve safety. For example, if a local rural segment is experiencing a high number of horizontal curve-related crashes, analysis of the inventory of roadway elements could reveal that the roadway does not have sufficient signage installed in advance of many of those curves to give motorists warning of the pending change in roadway geometry.
Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.
2.7 Exposure Data
The number of crashes can sometimes provide misleading information about the most appropriate locations for treatment. Introducing exposure data helps to create a more effective comparison of locations. Exposure data provides a common metric to the crash data so roadway segments and intersections can be compared more appropriately, helping local agencies prioritize their potential safety improvements.
The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non-motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 21 two roadway segments have the same number of crashes but different traffic volumes, the segment with fewer vehicles (i.e., less exposure) will have a higher crash rate, meaning that vehicles were more likely to experience a crash along that roadway segment. In situations where traffic volume is not available, segment length or population can serve as an effective exposure element for comparison.
Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.
2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Local road practitioners should always consider conducting field assessments in conjunction with their collection of crash data to help identify problem locations. An assessment can be as informal as driving, walking or virtually viewing the road network looking for evidence of roadway crashes. Ideally, informal field assessments are to be performed by multidisciplinary teams that include a traffic safety expert, law enforcement personnel, and others. The team can visit several sites and document evidence of crashes or deficiencies on the roadway or roadside, including: damaged trees or fences, skid marks, ruts on the shoulder, car parts on the shoulder, and/or pavement drop-offs. This information, along with observations of actual driver-behavior, can be used to develop recommendations for improvement.
Field reviews can also be more formalized such as in conducting a Road Safety Audit (RSA). A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team examines and reports on existing or potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. Agencies considering RSAs for the first time are encouraged to consider requesting support from FHWA. For more information on FHWA’s free RSA support, go to their website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.
Informal field assessments and more formal RSAs provide an opportunity for local safety practitioners to gather and summarize all of the information sources discussed in Section 2. They can also be used to identify potential project delivery obstacles. The field assessments/RSAs should identify major environmental, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational issues that need to be considered when applying countermeasures.
Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It’s recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 22
3. Safety Data Analysis
Proactive safety analysis will assist in making informed decisions on the type, deployment levels, and locations for safety countermeasures. This builds on the previous discussions on information sources that identify safety issues. ‘Safety Data Analysis’ is one of the most critical steps in an agency’s overall proactive safety analysis approach. Ideally, agencies regularly analyze the safety data for their entire roadway networks to identify and prioritize the locations with the most severe safety issues. This step is often skipped by agencies reacting to a recent tragic crash and the corresponding public outcry, which may leave their most critical safety locations undetected.
As agencies analyze their safety data, they will need to select the implementation approach that most effectively address the safety issues identified; Systemic Approach, Spot Location Approach, Comprehensive Approach, or a combination of these approaches. For example, if a high number of crashes are occurring at a particular curve or along a short segment of roadway, a spot treatment may be appropriate. However, systemic treatment of multiple locations experiencing similar crash types may be necessary and most beneficial for reducing overall fatalities and injuries. These implementation approaches were described in Section 1.5. With all of the approaches, safety practitioners should be looking for patterns in the crash data and not just the total number of crashes. These patterns include:
types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, time of day, etc. Identifying and analyzing the patterns in the crash data will help ensure the most appropriate countermeasure is selected and the safety problems are effectively addressed.
3.1 Quantitative Analysis
Crash data analysis is used to determine the extent of the roadway safety issues, the priority for application of scarce resources, and the selection of appropriate countermeasures. The two main quantitative analysis methods for roadway crashes are crash frequency and crash rate.
Crash Frequency
Crash frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. A practitioner can determine crash volumes using methods discussed in Section 2, including: State crash database (SWITRS), TIMS, local agency crash databases, law enforcement crash reports, pin-maps, etc.
The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency:
• Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations.
o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 23 • Spatially display the sites on a pin-map or a GIS software package. o For small or rural agencies with lower volume roadways, network-wide pin-maps may be all that is needed to identify the highest priority locations. • Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles, types of crashes, and pedestrians involved in the crashes.
As stated earlier, this manual acknowledges many local agency safety practitioners may have their preferred methods for completing these analyses. For those agencies that do not and for those willing to try something new, Caltrans recommends using the TIMS website along with the processes outlined in this document to complete these analyses.
Once the crash frequency information is collected and displayed, the practitioner can complete a methodical analysis by geographic area, route, or a cluster analysis to determine which locations have experienced a high or moderate level of crashes. The resulting crash information can be further analyzed for recurring patterns or events. As agencies consider their locations with high levels of crashes, they should understand the overall random nature of crashes and the concept of “regression to the mean”, as discussed in Section 2. Otherwise, if the natural variations in crash occurrence are not accounted for, a site might be selected for study when the number of crashes is randomly high, or overlooked when the number of crashes is randomly low.
Crash Rate
Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often-used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections:
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 24 The crash rate for crashes on a roadway is calculated as:
R = (C x 100,000,000) / (V x 365 x N x L)
Where:
R = Crash rate for the road segment expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles of travel, C = Total number of crashes in the study period
V = Traffic volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
The crash rate for crashes at an intersection is calculated as:
R = (1,000,000 x C) / (365 x N x V)
Where:
R = Crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) C= Total number of intersection-related crashes in the study period N = Number of years of data
V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily
Similar to Crash Frequency, there are numerous methods for local safety practitioners to utilize Crash Rate in their safety data analysis and each will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples:
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments with the highest crashes in relationship to roadway length, traffic volumes, and/or population density.
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate.
Even though crash frequency and crash rate are helpful for local agency safety practitioners to effectively rank their most critical locations for improvements, the lack of reliable statewide traffic volumes for all roadway types precludes Caltrans from using the crash rate methodology in their statewide project scoring and ranking processes for the HSIP (discussed in more detail in Section 5).
Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of the roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies. Safety practitioners should look for patterns in the crash data, including: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, roadway characteristics, time of day, intersection control, etc.
3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CAMUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 25 paths crossing the roadway or a high number of utility poles/fixed objects adjacent to the edge of travel way). All of these characteristics should to be accounted for in an agency’s proactive safety analysis.
Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards
It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual 7 , FHWA’s “Green
Book” policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9
, and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations.
Field Assessments
While the qualitative analysis of compliance issues should continually occur on a network-wide basis, a qualitative analysis should also occur for each of the locations and corridors identified as a result of a ‘Quantitative Analysis’. The consideration of roadway infrastructure characteristics in conjunction with crash frequency or crash rate gives a more complete picture of overall safety and should be used in an agency’s identification and prioritization process for locations needing safety improvements. The qualitative assessment of HCCLs can be completed through the examination of maps and photographs, but the importance of in-field assessments by multi-disciplinary teams should not be underestimated. In some cases, field reviews of all potential project locations may not be practical, so safety practitioners are encouraged to utilize internet-mapping tools to view maps and photographs and virtually visit these sites from their offices.
Actual field visits or RSAs can be done at the highest priority locations before or during the countermeasure selection process. In many cases, field assessments are often the only way for practitioners to identify potential countermeasure implementation and project delivery obstacles.
Without in-field assessments, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints can be overlooked, including: sensitive environmental resources (widening may not be feasible next to wetlands), roadway users (rumble strips may not be feasible on roadways with high bicycle volumes and narrow shoulders), or nearby roadway stakeholders (flashing beacons may be problematic for adjacent residents.) Assessments can provide critical information for local practitioners as they prioritize their crash locations and select countermeasures with the greatest potential for cost effective deployment.
Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency’s proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 26 infrastructure characteristics that relate to both compliance issues and high crash frequencies/rates. As part of field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Rather than reviewing all crash sites individually, agencies may find the use of Internet mapping tools offers significant time savings. For agencies without a preferred virtual field review method, the SafeTREC TIMS website automatically links the SWITRS crash locations to Google Maps and Google Street View.
Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 27
4. Countermeasure Selection
Once locations and crash problems are identified as illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, the safety practitioners will need to select the set of proposed safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Individual elements of standard safety improvements are referred to as countermeasures and most countermeasures have corresponding Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
When applied correctly, CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes. CMFs are multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). NOTE: Given that CRF values can be more intuitive when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes; this document shows CRF values in the countermeasure tables. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout the text of this section and in other sections of this document.
In an effort to stretch the limited highway safety funding, local transportation agencies are encouraged to identify and implement the optimal combination of countermeasures to achieve the greatest benefits. Combined with crash cost data and project cost information, CRFs can help safety practitioners compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures and then choose the most appropriate application for their proposed safety improvement projects.
As agencies consider the overall scope/cost of their projects, they also need to consider the number of locations to which each countermeasure may be applied in order to maximize the B/C ratio and the overall effectiveness of their limited safety funding. For HCCLs with varying causes, the Spot Location Approach may be the most appropriate. In contrast, the Systemic Approach should be considered where a high proportion of similar crash types tend to occur at locations that share common geometric or operational elements. In these situations, installing the same low-cost safety countermeasure at multiple locations can increase the cost effectiveness of the safety improvement, allowing an increased number of treatments to be applied.
It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it’s expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 28
4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors
Selecting an appropriate countermeasure and corresponding CMF is similar to choosing the right tool for a job. In some cases, a countermeasure and CMF may not be perfect, but will still work well enough to get the job done by providing a reasonable estimation of the countermeasure's effect. In other cases, using an improper countermeasure or CMF may do more harm than good. Applying a CMF that does not fit a specific situation may give a false sense of the countermeasure's safety effectiveness and may result in an increased safety problem.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is leading a concerted effort to develop information on CMFs and makes it available to State and local agencies to assist with highway safety planning. The CMF Clearinghouse, a free online database introduced in 2009 and accessible at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, details the varying quality and reliability of CMFs available to transportation professionals.
FHWA has identified three main considerations to assure appropriate selection of CMFs for a given countermeasure: the availability of relevant CMFs, the applicability of available CMFs, and the quality of applicable CMFs. The following sections detail these considerations and describe how Caltrans recommended CRF and service life values meet these criteria.
Availability: The availability of a CMF that applies to a specific situation depends on whether research has been conducted to determine the safety effects of a particular countermeasure or combination of countermeasures, and whether researchers have documented it. The CMF Clearinghouse contains more than 2,900 CMFs and receives quarterly updates to include the latest research.
At this point, Caltrans has established a small subset of 82 countermeasures and a single CRF for each of these countermeasures that must be used when submitting applications for Caltrans statewide calls-forprojects. This methodology allows for a statewide data-driven process that facilitates a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. (The reason for limiting the number of countermeasures is further explained below under “applicability”).
Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2-lane vs. 6- lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non-signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 29 The mix of countermeasures and CRFs included in this document is intended to meet Caltrans’ goal for a data-driven award process for local agencies to follow that allows for a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value intended for use in statewide callsfor-projects is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for ‘all’ project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies.
Quality: Often a search of the CMF Clearing House results in multiple CMFs for the same countermeasure. A practitioner needs to examine the quality of each CMF. The quality of a CMF can vary greatly depending on several factors associated with the process of developing the CMF. The primary factors that determine the quality of a CMF are the study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. The CMF Clearinghouse provides a star rating for each based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the highest quality. The most reliable CMFs in the HSM are indicated with a bold font.
Wherever possible, the CRFs included in this document are based on research that has a CMF Clearinghouse star rating of 3 or more. For countermeasures that do not have corresponding research of a star rating of 3 or more but were deemed important to provide flexibility to local practitioners, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to establish CRFs based on the best available research.
4.2 List of Countermeasures
The list of countermeasures discussed in this section is not an all-inclusive list, and only includes those available in the Caltrans’ HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects. Only thoroughly researched countermeasures with a readiness to be applied by local agencies on a statewide basis are utilized. In addition, the California Local HSIP program places further restrictions on the eligibility of some countermeasures to meet the most critical needs on California local roadways. Practitioners are encouraged to utilize the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse for a more comprehensive list as they establish their local agency specific set of proposed improvements and prioritize their projects.
The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non-motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 30 Only Crash Types, CRFs, Expected Lives, and HSIP Funding Eligibility of the countermeasures for use in Caltrans local HSIP program are provided in this section. Fields in the countermeasure tables are:
• Crash Types - “All”, “P & B” (Pedestrian and Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”. • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Funding Eligibility – the maximum HSIP reimbursement ratio for HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects. o Eighty-one (85) countermeasures: 90%
o One (1) countermeasure: 50% (CM No. SI03: Improve signal timing, as this CM will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.) • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” or “Low”.
The list of countermeasures presented in this section is intended to be a quick-reference summary.
Appendix B of this manual provides more details on each of these countermeasures including Where to use, Why it works, General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness), and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse (Crash Types Addressed and range of Crash Reduction Factor).
Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 31 Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
SI01NT Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium SI02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High
SI03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High SI04EV Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
SI05 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
SI06 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High SI07 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium SI08 Operation/
Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High SI09 Operation/
Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium SI10 Operation/
Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium SI11 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium SI12PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low SI13 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
SI14 Geometric Mod. Install right‐turn lane (S.I.) All 15% 20 90% Medium SI15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium SI16RA Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low SI17RA Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low SI18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High SI19PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High SI20PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High SI21PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High SI22PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 32 Table 2. Countermeasures for Non-Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expecte
d Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
NS01NT Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04RA Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05RA Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS06RA Control Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Medium NS07RA Control Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Medium
NS08 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS09 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS13 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS14 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS16 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and uturns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS18 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS19 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS20 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS21PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS22PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS23PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS24PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS25PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 33 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R01NT Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 34 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued)
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High
R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32 Operation/ Warning Speed Safety Cameras All 20% 10 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R35PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R39AL Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 35
5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects
Practitioners need to consider the expected B/C ratio of their proposed projects. This is an important step in a proactive safety analysis process because it provides two key pieces of information: First, it defines the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects; and second, it gives the safety practitioner a means to help prioritize their safety projects both inside the agency’s traffic safety section and against other proposed operational and maintenance projects competing for funding.
5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Sections 2 through 4 provide the practitioner all the information needed to calculate the expected ‘Benefit’ of the proposed safety projects. The resulting expected benefit value is derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding CMFs to the expected crashes. It is of critical importance for the practitioner to understand that misapplication of a CMF will lead to misinformed decisions. Four main factors need to be considered when applying countermeasures and CMFs to calculate the expected benefit value: (1) how to estimate the number of expected crashes without treatment, (2) how to apply CMFs by type and severity, (3) how to apply multiple CMFs if multiple treatments are to be included in the same project, and (4) how to apply a benefit value by crash severity. The following text explains how these factors affect the expected benefit value in more detail.
Estimating expected crashes without treatment: Before applying CMFs, local safety practitioners first need to select countermeasures and CMFs. The CMF is applied to the expected safety performance (expected crashes) without any treatment in order to estimate the expected crashes with the treatment.
The reduction in expected crashes multiplied by the expected costs per each crash gives the practitioner the expected benefit.
As mentioned earlier in this manual, the random nature of roadway crashes suggests that over time the number of crashes at any particular locations will change. This concept is known as “regression to the mean” and it gives rise to the concern that a site might be selected for study when the crashes are at a randomly high fluctuation, or overlooked from study when the site is at a randomly low fluctuation. The HSM presents several methods for estimating the expected safety performance of a roadway or intersection including the Empirical Bayes method, which combines observed information from the site of interest with information from similar sites to estimate the expected crashes without treatment.
Another common way to minimize the impact of regression to the mean is to increase the number of years of crash data being analyzed.
For statewide calls-for-projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 3 to 5 years of “observed crashes” in estimating “expected crashes.” Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 36
practitioners to choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project. In many circumstances, estimating the change in crashes by type and severity is useful; however, local safety practitioners only can use this approach when CMFs exist for the specific crash types and severities in question. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect may be over- or underestimated. (For example: past research relating to installing a channelized left turn lane, has estimated CMFs as high as 68% for Right-Angle crashes of all severities and as low as 11% for Rear-End crashes with severities of only fatal and injury).
Applying multiple CMFs: In real-world scenarios, transportation agencies commonly install more than one countermeasure per project as part of their safety improvement program. This leads to the question, "What is the safety effect of the combined countermeasures?" The calculation methods that Transportation agencies use include: applying the CMF for the single countermeasure expected to achieve the greatest reduction, applying CMFs separately by crash type and summing them to get a project-level effect, and applying CMFs based on a review of crash patterns, etc. Regardless of the specific method employed, “engineering judgment” is required when combining multiple CMFs and it is important for local agencies to apply their method consistently throughout their analysis to ensure a fair comparison of projects.
One common practice is to assume that CMFs are multiplicative when they are applied to the same set of crash data. In other words, each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit when implemented in combination with other countermeasures. The multiplicative method is a common, generally accepted method and is presented in the HSM and in the CMF Clearinghouse. This method is also used in the HSIP calls-for-projects.
To allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site. The CMFs are multiplicative if there are multiple countermeasures, i.e. each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit based on the remainder of the crashes after the effect of the prior countermeasures, not the original number of the crashes.
More information on these requirements and procedures are provided in the documents (Application Form Instructions, etc.) for each call-for-projects.
Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. In other words, the expected “benefit” value for a project is actually the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 37
When calculating the “benefit” to be used in calculating an improvement’s B/C ratio, it is important for the practitioner to consider whether a total benefit value for the “life” of the improvement is needed or if the benefit value should be annualized (i.e., benefit per year). Whichever method is used to calculate the overall cost of the improvements must also be used for calculating the benefit.
Caltrans has currently chosen to use published Cost-of-Crash values from the first edition of the HSM and increase the values by 4% annually. These values may be updated in the future, when updated costof-crash values are published by FHWA or another national source. The specific values for each of the crash severities and the formulas uses to calculate the total benefit are shown in Appendix D.
Recommended Action: Prepare Total Benefit estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements After calculating the expected benefit of the proposed safety projects, the next step for the practitioner is to develop an estimate of the Total Project Costs. These costs need to include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. The most common approach to estimating construction costs is through an “Engineer’s Cost Estimate.” A Template for Detailed Engineer’s Estimate and Cost Breakdown by Countermeasures is included in the HSIP Analyzer. When calculating the administration costs for a project, the complexity of the improvements must be accounted for: Low-cost countermeasures, typically used in the Systemic Approach, often have minimal environmental and rightof-way impacts and require minimal design effort. In contrast, many medium to high cost improvements tend to have greater impacts to the environment and right-of-way and require significant design efforts.
It’s crucial to account for these differences to accurately determine the true B/C ratio of the projects and prioritize them correctly.
When an agency is initially evaluating several potential locations and countermeasures as part of their proactive safety analysis or in preparing for Caltrans call-for-projects, they should consider first using rough ‘ballpark’ cost estimates using previous projects that had similar scope, if possible. Ballpark cost estimates can allow the practitioner to quickly establish B/C ratios for all of their potential projects and identify the projects with high cost effectiveness and with a reasonable chance of receiving HSIP funding in a Caltrans call-for-projects.
Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio
In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project’s overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 38
methods and input-factors available for calculating a project’s B/C ratio and practitioners may want to consider other methods as defined in the HSM.
Based on Caltrans’ need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-forprojects, Caltrans requires the B/C ratio for all applications to be completed using the same process.
Applicants must utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. Additional details and formulas included in the calculation are included in this document as Appendix D.
Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements
By implementing a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, agencies will likely identify more potential safety projects than they can fund and deliver. It will be important for an agency to prioritize their projects internally before funding is sought. It is not uncommon for projects to have a B/C ratio as low as 0.1 or as high as 100. Once the relative cost effectiveness of an agency’s potential projects has been established, the projects with low to mid-ranged B/C ratios should be reassessed. Projects with very low initial B/C ratios may be dropped while projects with low to mid ranged B/C ratios may be redefined by changing the limits of the proposed improvements to focus on higher crash locations or incorporating lower-cost countermeasures. This reiterative process is illustrated in Figure 1 in Section 1 of this document.
At the conclusion of this step, the local agency should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. Ideally, there will be a variety of low cost safety projects and potentially a few higher cost roadway reconstruction projects. How each local agency prioritizes their list of safety improvements will vary, but projects with the highest B/C ratios should generally have a high overall priority. It should be understood that available funding will play a key role in local agency prioritization (e.g., higher-cost projects may have to wait for funding to become available while low-cost improvements with lower B/C ratios can be constructed with in-house maintenance crews), but in the goal of maximizing overall safety benefits, the role of politics and public influence should be minimized.
Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 39
6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
Funding strategies for implementing safety projects need to vary as widely as local agency’s roadway types, project costs, and proposed improvements. At this point in the proactive safety analysis process, local agencies should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. There are likely a wide range of ‘approaches’ to fund each of these projects.
This section of the document discusses some of the most common approaches.
6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment. Other low-cost projects (e.g., overlays, sealcoats, drainage, signing, and striping projects) may be more important to incorporate into larger maintenance projects. It is common for agencies to have 1-, 5-, and 10-year plans for making these standard maintenance improvements. With upfront planning and coordination between agency staff, the lowcost safety projects identified through the proactive safety analysis can be incorporated with minimal costs to an agency’s maintenance program. Maximizing the cost effectiveness of the program may even allow the transportation managers to justify increasing the funding for their overall roadway maintenance program.
In addition to their maintenance program, transportation managers should also strategically seek out planned capital improvement and development projects that can incorporate low and medium cost countermeasures identified in their safety analysis. Local agencies may also find opportunities to partner with private enterprises and insurance companies to fund special safety projects that further both organizations’ strategic goals.
Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.
6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources
In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance’s web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 40
6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations In general, roadway safety projects don’t garner the same level of attention from decision makers, media, elected officials, and the general public, that large operational and development-driven projects do. As a result, local safety practitioners and project sponsors often find their projects have difficulty in competing for the agencies’ limited project delivery resources. Establishing and implementing a comprehensive safety analysis process can assist safety practitioners in delivering their safety programs in many ways, including:
• Credibility and awareness to individual projects and delivery schedules. • Increased stakeholders tracking and delivery of a project when low-cost improvements are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and capital projects. • An increased focus on low-cost countermeasures typically corresponds to projects with less environmental, right-of-way and other impacts; resulting in projects that have streamlined project delivery processes and short construction schedules.
Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 41
7. Evaluation of Improvements
Evaluation of the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation should be used to guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. Field reviews should also be conducted shortly after the project is completed to insure the project is operating as intended.
A record of crash history and countermeasure installation forms the foundation for assessing how well the implemented strategies have performed. An important database to maintain is a current list of installed countermeasures with documented “when/where/why” information. Periodic assessments will provide the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether each countermeasure contributed to an increase in safety, whether the countermeasure could or should be installed at other locations, and which factors may have contributed to each countermeasure’s success.
In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. The time period varies, but whenever possible, 3 to 5 years is recommended to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean). The information required may consist of public input and complaints, police reports, observations from maintenance crews, and local and State crash data.
It is important to keep the list of safety installations up-to-date since it will serve as a record of countermeasure deployment history (see table below for an example). By using this type of system, assessment dates can be scheduled to review the crashes and other pertinent information on segments where roadway countermeasures have been installed. Making “after” assessments will inform the practitioner on the effectiveness of past improvements and can provide data to help justify the value of continuing and expanding the local agency’s safety program in the future.
Location Type of Countermeasure
Installed
Date
Installed
Crashes Before
(Duration and
Severity)
Crashes After
(Duration and
Severity)
Comments
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 42
Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Application Process
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 43
Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures
The intent of the information contained in this appendix is to provide local agency safety practitioners with a list of effective countermeasures that are appropriate remedies to many common safety issues.
The tables in Section 4.2 present a quick summary of the specific values that the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance uses to assess and select projects for its calls- for-projects. In addition to the same information as in Section 4.2, this appendix also includes notes for Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects and “General information” regarding where the countermeasure should be used, why it works, the general qualities that can be used to suggest the potential complexity of installation, and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse on the type of crashes where the countermeasure is best used and a range of their expected overall effectiveness.
The countermeasures have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories.
Caltrans gives careful consideration to the fair application of its calls-for-projects process. Starting in 2012, the award of safety funding has been solely based on a determined benefit-to-cost ratio for each project. The fixed set of countermeasures and CRFs included in these tables are intended to allow for all projects to be evaluated consistently and fairly throughout the project selection process. However, at this time, there are no CRFs/CMFs available for several safety improvements, such as: "dynamic/variable speed regulatory signs", "non-motorized signs and markings (regulatory and warning)", "Square-up (reduce curve radius) turn lanes" and non-infrastructure elements. These safety improvement items can be included in project applications, but they will not be included into the B/C ratio calculations, unless the safety improvements meet the intent of other separate countermeasures included in the attached lists. Caltrans is interested in adding these countermeasures (and many others) to these tables once CRFs/CMFs have been established. Caltrans will continue to periodically update this list of allowable countermeasures and CRFs as new safety research data becomes available. With this in mind, Caltrans is interested in feedback and suggestions from local agency safety practitioners on the overall countermeasure list as well as specific details of individual countermeasures, including locally developed safety effectiveness information.
Caltrans used the following references to assist its team in developing the information shown in the following tables. Safety Practitioners are encouraged to utilize these references for a more expansive list of countermeasures and CRFs / CMFs.
The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 44
Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Tools to Diagnose and Solve the Problem https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/
FHWA Local and Rural Road / Training, Tools, Guidance and Countermeasures for Locals https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/
For each countermeasure (CM):
(Title) CM No., CM Name
• CM No. is
o SI01NT through SI22PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized, o NS01NT through NS24PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Unsignalized, or o R01NT through R39AL for Roadway Countermeasures.
Some CM Numbers have two letters at the end – this is used to quickly identity the specific feature of the CM. For example, “NT” - reducing night crashes, “PB” – reducing Pedestrian and Bicycle crashes, “EV” – countermeasure toward Emergency Vehicle involved crashes, “AL”- countermeasure toward Animal involved crashes, and “RA” – roundabout.
For HSIP Calls-for-projects:
• Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%.
• Crash Types Addressed - “All”, “Pedestrian and Bicycle”, “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”.
• CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for-projects.
•
General Information:
• Where to use – Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works – A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features.
• General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) – This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. ‘Time’ refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so ‘cost’ represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall ‘effectiveness’ is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 45
• FHWA CMF Clearinghouse
o Crash Types Addressed – In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
o Crash Reduction Factor – The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1 – CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 46
B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized
SI01NT, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% "night" crashes 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why it works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost which results in a moderate to high cost.
Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 20-74% SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7".
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.
Why it works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 47
SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 50% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new signal timing. For projects coordination signals along a corridor, the crashes related to side-street movements should not be applied. This CM does not apply to projects that only 'study' the signal network and do not make physical timing changes, including corridor operational studies and improvements to Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs).
In Caltrans calls for projects, this CM has a HSIP reimbursement ratio of 50%, considering that it will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.
General information
Where to use:
Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations.
Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.
Why it works:
Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
In general, these low-cost improvements to multiple signalized intersections can be implemented in a short time. Typically these low cost improvements are funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, some projects requiring new interconnect infrastructure can have moderate to high costs making them more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual project.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41% SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Emergency Vehicle - only 70% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "E.V." crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pre-emption system.
General information
Where to use:
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles Why it works:
Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash.
When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs for installation of a signal preemption system will vary from medium to high, based upon the number of signalized intersections at which preemption will be installed and the number of emergency vehicles to be outfitted with the technology.
The number of detectors, a requirement for new signal controllers, and the intricacy of the preemption system could increase costs. This CM is considered systemic as it is usually implemented on a corridor-basis.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Emergency Vehicle - only CRF: 70% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 48
SI05, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.
Why it works:
Left-turn lanes allow separation of left-turn and through-traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Leftturn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left-turn. The combination of left-turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left-turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non-motorized road users.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementation time may vary from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly installed simply by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. Installing a protected left turn lane and phase where none exists results in a high Crash Reduction Factor and is often highly effective.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 17 - 58 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 49
SI06, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn phases. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn (unless the single left is unprotected and the proposed double left will be protected).
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non-motorized road users. A properly timed protected left-turn phase can also help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.
Why it works:
Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles. Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
If the existing traffic signal only requires a minor modification to allow for a protected left-turn phase, then the cost would also be low. The time to implement this countermeasure is short because there is no actual construction that has to take place. Inhouse signal maintainers can perform this operation once the proper signal phasing is determined so the cost is low. In addition, the countermeasure is tried and proven to be effective. Has the potential of being applied on a systemic/systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Sideswipe, Broadside CRF: 16 - 99% SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the converted signal heads that are relocated from median and/or outside shoulder pedestals to signal heads on master arms over the travel-lanes. Projects using CM "S7" should not also apply "S2" in the B/C calc.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.
Why it works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.
Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Dependent on the scope of the project. Costs are generally moderate for this type of project. There is usually no right-of-way costs, minimal roadway reconstruction costs, and a shorter project development timeline. At the same time, new mast arms can be expensive. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to moderate costs, some locations may result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 12 - 74% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 50
SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 10% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and influence areas of the new pavement markers and/or markings.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection.
Driver confusion can exist in regard to choosing the proper turn path or where through-lanes do not line up. This is especially relevant at intersections where the overall pavement area of the intersection is large, and multiple turning lanes are involved or other unfamiliar elements are presented to the driver.
Why it works:
Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs of implementing this strategy will vary based on the scope and number of applications. Applying raised pavement markers is relatively low cost but can be variable and determined largely by the material used for pavement markings (paint, thermoplastic, epoxy, RPMs etc.). When using this type delineators, an issue of concern is the cost-to-service-life of the material. (Note: When HSIP safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.) When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, All CRF: 10 - 33% SI09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new flashing beacons.
General information
Where to use:
At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.
Why it works:
Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. This combined with a relatively high CRF, can result in high B/Cs for locations with a history of crashes and lead to a high effectiveness.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 51
SI10, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.
General information
Where to use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why it works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % SI11, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts.
Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control.
Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.
Why it works:
Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive CMs would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. The result is This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Raised medians can often be installed directly over the existing pavement. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 21 -55 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 52
SI12PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk-phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25- 40% SI13, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.
General information
Where to use:
Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection.
Why it works:
Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. Affecting turning movements by either allowing them or restricting them, based on the application, can ensure safe movement of traffic.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can be implemented quickly. The cost of this strategy will depend on the treatment. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 53
SI14, Install right-turn lane (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right-turn lanes.
General information
Where to use:
A right‐turn lane may be appropriate in situations where there are an unusually high number of rear‐end collisions on a single major road approach. The need for right turn lanes should be assessed on an individual approach basis. Many collisions at signalized intersections are related to right‐turn maneuvers. It is also important to ensure that the right‐turn lanes are of sufficient length to allow vehicles to decelerate and "queue up" before turning, ideally without affecting the flow of through traffic. When considering new right‐turn lanes, potential impacts to non‐motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why it works:
The provision of right‐turn lanes can minimize collisions between vehicles turning right and following vehicles, particularly on high‐volume and high‐speed major roads. Installation of a right turn lane at a signalized intersection is expected to reduce total crashes and improve overall intersection delay.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right‐turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right‐of‐way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.
Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear‐End CRF: 14-27% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 54
SI15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.
General information
Where to use and Why it works:
Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT).
Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):
The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left-turn and through movements from cross-street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) to continue in the desired direction.
The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four-lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections.
Median U-turn (MUT)
The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross-street left turns.
The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left-turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 55
SI16RA, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in influence area of the new roundabout. This CM is not intended for compact roundabouts (SI17RA).
The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.
Why it works:
The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Provision of a roundabout requires substantial project development. The need to acquire right-of-way is likely and will vary from site to site and depends upon the geometric design. These activities may require up to 4 years or longer to implement. Costs are variable, but construction of a roundabout to replace an existing signalized intersection are relatively high. The result is this CM may have reduced relative-effectiveness compared to other CMs.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 35 - 67% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 56
SI17RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT and the project location (Rural/Urban). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.
General information
Where to use:
Compact roundabouts are characterized by a small inscribed circle diameter (80-100 ft). Compact roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Compact roundabouts may require minimal additional pavement, and in many cases existing curb or sidewalk can be left in place. As a result, compact roundabouts rarely require the purchase of right of way. Compact roundabouts are similar to single-lane roundabouts regarding design vehicle assumptions, ability to process traffic volumes, and signing.
Compact roundabouts are intended to be pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly because their perpendicular approach legs require very low vehicle speeds to make a distinct right turn into and out of the circulatory roadway. Capacity should not be a critical issue for this type of roundabout to be considered.
Why it works:
Compact roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of compact roundabouts are the compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Construction costs for compact roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, compact roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening. Construction costs can be moderate for compact roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA SI18PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new countdown heads.
General information
Where to use:
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why it works:
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 57
SI19PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection-related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements may be funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% SI20PB, Pedestrian Scramble
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection with the new pedestrian crossing.
General information
Where to use:
Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.
Why it works:
Pedestrian Scramble has been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to its perceived safety and comfort.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Not involving any additional R/W, Pedestrian Scramble should not require a long development process and should be implemented reasonably soon. A systemic approach may be used in implementing this CM, resulting in cost efficiency with low to moderate cost.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: -10% to 51% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 58
SI21PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection-crossing with the new advanced stop bars.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.
Why it works:
Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 35% SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).
General information
Where to use:
Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why it works:
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn right or left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local-funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 59
B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized
NS01NT, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why it works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met.
General information
Where to use:
Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed.
Why it works:
All-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The costs involved in converting to all-way stop control are relatively low. All-way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 6 - 80% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 60
NS03, Install signals
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new signals. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7. Given the over-arching operational changes that occur when an intersection is signalized, no other intersection CMs can be applied to the intersection crashes in conjunction with this CM.
General information
Where to use:
Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.
Why it works:
Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Typical traffic signal costs fall in the medium to high category and are affected by application, type of signal and right-of-away considerations. Projects of this magnitude should only be considered after alternate and lesser means of correction have been evaluated. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 74% NS04RA/NS05RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.
The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.
Why it works:
Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and stop/yield-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-ofway to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 61
NS06RA/NS07RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT and the project location (Rural/Urban). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.
General information
Where to use:
Compact roundabouts are characterized by a small inscribed circle diameter (80-100 ft). Compact roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Compact roundabouts may require minimal additional pavement, and in many cases existing curb or sidewalk can be left in place. As a result, compact roundabouts rarely require the purchase of right of way. Compact roundabouts are similar to single-lane roundabouts regarding design vehicle assumptions, ability to process traffic volumes, and signing.
Compact roundabouts are intended to be pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly because their perpendicular approach legs require very low vehicle speeds to make a distinct right turn into and out of the circulatory roadway. Capacity should not be a critical issue for this type of roundabout to be considered.
Why it works:
Compact roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of compact roundabouts are the compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Construction costs for compact roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, compact roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening. Construction costs can be moderate for compact roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis.
General information
Where to use:
The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Why it works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 55% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 62
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing pavement markings and striping.
General information
Where to use:
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.
Why it works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 13 - 60% NS10, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop-controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons.
General information
Where to use:
Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.
Why it works:
Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs.
Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 5-34% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 63
NS11, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new beacons placed in advance of the intersection.
General information
Where to use:
Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.
Why it works:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).
In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 36 - 62% NS12, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new rumble strips.
General information
Where to use:
Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Due to the noise generated by vehicles driving over the rumble strips, care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses.
Why it works:
When motorists are traveling along the roadway, they are sometimes unaware they are approaching an intersection. This is especially true on rural roads, as there may be fewer clues indicating an intersection ahead. Transverse rumble strips warn motorists that something unexpected is ahead that they need to pay attention to.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Use of transverse rumble strips requires minimal development process, allowing transverse rumble strips to be installed within a short time period. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach, although care should be taken to not over-use this CM. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wearlocations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 35% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 64
NS13, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the significantly improved new sight distance. Minor/incidental improvements to sight distance would not likely result in the CRF shown below.
General information
Where to use:
Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway.
Why it works:
Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield-controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop or yield-controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Projects involving clearing sight obstructions on the highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing sight obstructions on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way.
In general, this CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. Usually only high-cost removals would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. Note:
When federal safety funding is used to remove vegetation that has the potential to grow back, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 56% NS14, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.
General information
Where to use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non-signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why it works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 65
NS15, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new splitter island on the minor road approaches.
General information
Where to use:
Minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections where the presence of the intersection or the stop sign is not readily visible to approaching motorists. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections where the speeds on the minor road are high. In creation of a splitter island allows for an additional stop sign to be placed in the median for the minor approach.
Why it works:
The installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. Additionally, the splitter island on the minor-road provides for a positive separation between turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on the minor road approach.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Splitter islands at non-signalized intersections can usually be installed with minimal roadway reconstruction and relatively quickly. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 35 - 100 % NS16, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered nonparticipating.
General information
Where to use:
Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable.
Why it works:
Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive approaches would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, the need for providing alternative access ways should be considered. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 39 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 66
NS17, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.
General information
Where to use:
Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, they should be used in conjunction with efforts to provide alternative access ways and promote driveway spacing objectives.
Why it works:
Agencies are increasingly using access management techniques on urban and suburban arterials to manage the number of conflicts experienced at an intersection. A key element of access management is to restrict certain movements, create directional median openings, or close median openings that are deemed too close to an intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can usually be implemented quickly. Costs are highly variable but in many cases could be considered low. In some cases this strategy may involve acquiring access or constructing replacement access; those actions will significantly increase the cost of the project. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 67
NS18, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.
General information
Where to use and Why it works:
Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT).
Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):
The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left-turn and through movements from cross-street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) to continue in the desired direction.
The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four-lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections.
Median U-turn (MUT)
The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross-street left turns.
The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left-turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 68
NS19, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right-turn lanes. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.
General information
Where to use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why it works:
The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear-end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right-turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Right-turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non-motorized users.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.
Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 14 - 26 % NS20, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left-turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.
General information
Where to use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new left-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why it works:
Adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rearend collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left-turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left-turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left-turn and opposing through vehicles.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 9 -55 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 69
NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
Why it works:
Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 30 - 56 % NS22PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including:
continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 25 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 70
NS23PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic.
They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS24PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.
General information
Where to use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why it works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 71
NS25PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new signal.
For HAWK or other pedestrian signals, the justification may be Warrant 4, 5 and/or 7, or passing the test in Figure 4F-1/4F-2 in Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD. Please refer to Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD for more details
General information
Where to use:
Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.
Why it works:
Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.
Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of nonmotorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The cost of improvements are generally high, but can vary dependent on the type of signal and overall scope of the project. In most cases the project duration can be short. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 15 - 69% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 72
B.3 Roadway Countermeasures
R01NT, Add Segment Lighting
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.
Why it works:
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports.
Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 18 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM).
General information
Where to use:
Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.
Why it works:
While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object CRF: 17 - 100 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 73
R03, Install Median Barrier
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new barrier.
General information
Where to use:
Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non-severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.
Why it works:
This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy would in many cases be possible to implement within a short period after site selection. Costs will vary depending on the type of median barrier selected and whether the strategy is implemented as a stand-alone project or incorporated as part of a reconstruction or resurfacing effort. Maintenance costs and worker exposure will also vary depending on the type of barrier selected. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 0 - 94 % R04, Install Guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new guardrail. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged rail).
For projects proposing to upgrade existing guardrail to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing rail conditions suggests the upgraded guardrail may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).
General information
Where to use:
Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.
Why it works:
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Strategies range from relatively inexpensive too costly. Costly projects may include those that upgrade existing guardrail applications to more semi-rigid and rigid barrier systems over extended distances. In general, this CMs can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 11 - 78 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 74
R05, Install impact attenuators
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new attenuators. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged attenuators). For projects proposing to upgrade existing attenuators to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing attenuator conditions suggests the upgraded attenuators may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).
General information
Where to use:
Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information.
Why it works:
Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs depending on the scope of the project, type(s) used, and associated ongoing maintenance costs. Time to install is fairly quick once site is identified.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 50 % R06, Flatten side slopes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new side slopes. Minor/incidental flattening of side slopes would not likely result in the CRF shown below and may not be appropriate for use in Caltrans B/C calculations.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes.
Why it works:
Flattened slopes provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. Steep slopes, ditches or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane offer little opportunities to correct an inappropriate action by a driver and can result in sever crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. In other cases This CM can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 62 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 75
R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of both the removed guardrail and the new side slopes.
General information
Where to use:
Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations.
Why it works:
Flattened side slopes and an unobstructed clear zone provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. The existing guardrail may help protect the steep slopes, fixed objects, or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane, but removing all of these obstacles generally improves safety.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Roll Over, Fixed Object CRF: 42% R08, Install raised median
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.
General information
Where to use:
Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised - instead a median barrier should be considered. Including landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be done in ways that do not increase drivers’ exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.
Why it works:
Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
In some cases this strategy may be a retrofit into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder.
These raised medians can be installed directly over the existing pavement. Cost and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. The surface treatment of the raised median also significantly affects their cost-effectiveness: standard concrete or other hardscape surfaces are usually more cost effective than landscaped medians. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase due to excavation, backfill/top-soil, water-connection, irrigation, planting, maintenance needed for the landscaping. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 20 - 75 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 76
R09, Install median (flush)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new flush median. The new median must be a minimum of 4 feet wide (or "wider" if a narrow median exists before the proposed project).
General information
Where to use:
Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median.
Why it works:
Adding medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a narrow buffer median between opposing flows, thereby providing a greater opportunity to correct an errant maneuver and further reinforce the limits of the travel lane. Application widths can vary based on the available cross section and intended application.
Additional safety can be provided by combining this CM with rumble strips.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 15 - 78 % R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.
General information
Where to use:
Roadway segments with high pedestrian-generators and pedestrian-destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid-block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25 - 40% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 77
R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new accel/decel lanes on high speed roadways. Significant improvements to the merge length for lane-drop locations is also an acceptable use of this CM.
General information
Where to use:
Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane-drop location.
Why it works:
A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear-end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the throughtraffic lanes of a highway. Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through-traffic and cause rear-end and sideswipe collisions.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs are highly variable. Where sufficient median or shoulder space exists it may be possible to provide acceleration/deceleration lanes at a moderate cost. Where the roadway must be widened and additional right-of-way must be acquired, higher costs and a lengthy time-to-construct are likely. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Sideswipe, Rear-End CRF: 10 - 75 % R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the widened lanes. Widening must a minimum of 1 foot.
General information
Where to use:
Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet.
Why it works:
Increasing pavement width can affect almost all crash types. A common practice is to widen the traveled way on horizontal curves to make operating conditions on curves comparable to those on tangents. Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross-centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs will depend on the amount of reconstruction necessary and on whether additional right-of-way is required. In general, this is one of the higher-cost strategies recommended, but it can also be very beneficial. Since this is a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 5 - 70 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 78
R13, Add two-way left-turn lane
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane, where an existing median did not already exist.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic.
Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently.
Why it works:
Two-way left-turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel and separate left turning traffic from through traffic. They can also help to allow vehicles to begin to accelerate before entering the through-traffic lanes. They reduce the disruption of flow of through-traffic and reducing rear-end and sideswipe collisions. For some roadways the option of converting a four-lane undivided arterials to two-vehicle-lane roadways with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes should be considered (see "Road Diet" CM.)
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median, requiring new right-of-way, and having significant environmental impacts. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location as the B/C ratios will vary from low to high.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 8 - 50 % R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane striping. "Intersection" crashes can only be applied when they resulted from turning movements that had no designated turn lanes/phases in the existing condition and the Road Diet will provide turn lanes/phases for these movements. This CM does not apply to roadway sections that already included left turn lanes or two way left turn lanes before the lane reductions. New bike lanes are also expected to be part of these projects. if any pavement is planned to be removed for the purpose of adding landscaping, planterboxes, or other non-roadway user features, the cost should be non-participating.
General information
Where to use:
Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.
Why it works:
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Implementation would require more time than in other low-cost treatments to complete environmental analyses, traffic studies and public input. Projects that only require new lane markings and minor signalization modifications will have relatively low cost and can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. These striping and signal modification costs should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. (If additional signal hardware improvements are being made, over what is needed for the road diet, then the Improve Signal Hardware CM may also be used.) Often road diet projects need a seal-coat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. These seal coats are considered part of the proper installation of this CM. In contrast, structural-overlays should not be considered part of this CM and are not considered eligible for funding in the California Local HSIP.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 79
R15, Widen shoulder
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new paved shoulder. A minimum of 2 feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a minimum of 4 feet wide. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", for which the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.
Why it works:
Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases - practitioners should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Shoulder widening costs would depend on whether new right-of-way is required and whether extensive roadside modification is needed. Since shoulder widening can be a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road, Sideswipe CRF: 15 - 75 %
R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the new shoulder widening at curves. A minimum of 2-4 feet width must be added to the outside of horizontal curves and the new traversable shoulder must be a minimum of 4 feet wide.
General information
Where to use:
Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway.
Why it works:
Adding shoulders (outside only) creates a recovery area in which a driver can regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
To minimize the R/W needs and the cost, only outside shoulder at curves is to be widened. This CM can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: NA
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 80
R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why it works:
Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy is a long-term, higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a horizontal curve because it usually involves total reconstruction of the roadway. It may also require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review.
This strategy, albeit costly, has shown that increasing the radius of curvature can significantly reduce total curve-related crashes by up to 80 percent. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 24 - 90% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 81
R18, Flatten crest vertical curve
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.
General information
Where to use:
The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why it works:
Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Projects involving changing the horizontal and/or vertical alignment to provide more sight distance are quite extensive and usually take several years to accomplish. If additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected, these projects will require a substantial period of time. Since this is usually an expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard locations.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 51 % R19, Improve curve superelevation
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved superelevation. This CM does not apply to sections of roadways where the horizontal or vertical alignments are changing via another CM.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal.
Why it works:
Superelevation works with friction between the tires and pavement to counteract the forces on the vehicle associated with cornering. Many curves may have inadequate superelevation because of vehicles traveling at higher speeds than were originally designed for, because of loss of effective superelevation after resurfacing, or because of changes in design policy after the curve was originally constructed.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy can be a higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a curve because it involves reconstruction to some degree. Other projects may be able to be constructed by simple overlays and minimal reconstruction of roadways features.
When simple overlay fixes are pursued, a systematic installation approach may be appropriate. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 40 - 50 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 82
R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new one-way sections.
General information
Where to use:
One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd-spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. Care must be taken not to create conditions that cause driver confusion and erratic maneuvers.
Why it works:
Studies have shown a 10 to 50-percent reduction in total crashes after conversion of a two-way street to one-way operation.
While studies have shown that con-version of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. At the same time, this strategy (1) increases capacity significantly and (2) can have safety-related drawbacks including pedestrian confusion and minor sideswipe crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The costs will vary depending on length of treatment and if the conversion requires modification to signals. Conversion costs can be high to build "crossovers" where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets and to rebuild traffic signals. It's also likely that these types of modifications will require public involvement and could significantly add to the time it takes to complete the project. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.
General information
Where to use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why it works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Rear-End, All CRF: 17 - 68 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 83
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new/upgraded signs. This CM is not intended for maintenance upgrades of street-name, parking, guide, or any other signs without a primary focus on roadway safety. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as part of a larger sign audit project, including the study of: 1) the existing signs' locations, sizes and information per MUTCD standards, 2) missing signs per MUTCD standards, and 3) sign retroreflectivity. The overall sign audit scope (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application. Based on the scope of the project/audit, it may be appropriate to combine other CMs in the B/C calculation.
General information
Where to use:
The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head on, Run-off road, Sideswipe, Night CRF: 18 - 35%
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 84
R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve).
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. While they are intended to act as a warning, it should also be remembered that the posts, placed along the roadside, represent a possible object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. Design of posts to minimize damage and injury is an important part of the considerations to be made when selecting these treatments.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 6 - 64 % R24, Install curve advance warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. This countermeasure may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why it works:
This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 20 - 30 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 85
R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness.
Why it works:
This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve.
It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly challenging.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).
In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 30 % R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. through the curve) {This CM does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed warning signs. There are currently no nationally accepted CRFs for dynamic regulatory signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs).
CRFs are being developed and Caltrans hopes to include these CMs and CRFs in future calls for projects.}
General information
Where to use:
Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.
Why it works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Use of dynamic speed warning signs requires minimal development process, allowing them to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).
In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 86
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits / influence area of the new features. {This is not a striping-related CM}
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness.
Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside that have yet to experience crashes. If a fixed object cannot be relocated or made break-away, placing an object marker can provide additional information to motorists. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:
Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don't require posts to place along the roadside, avoiding an additional object with which an errant vehicle can crash into.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 30 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 87
R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new centerlines and/or edge-lines.
This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing striping and RPMs in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing striping. For two lane roadways allowing passing, a striping audit must be done to ensure the passing limits meeting the MUTCD standards. Both the centerline and edge-lines are expected to be upgraded, unless prior approval is granted by Caltrans staff in writing and attached to application.
General information
Where to use:
Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.
Why it works:
Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are allweather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded striping upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Striping Audit and Upgrade Projects".
Including wide-scale striping audits in the development phase of striping projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) striping/marking features, no-passing zone limits needing adjustment, and missing striping/markings that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on this concepts is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage under an RSSA example document. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Run-off Road, All CRF: 0 - 44 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 88
R29, Install no-passing line
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new or extended no-passing zones.
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have a high percentage of head-on crashes suggesting that many head-on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No-passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance" is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions. General restriping projects can be good opportunities to reevaluate and incorporate new no-passing zones limits. The incorporation 'No Passing Zone' pennants should also be considered when reevaluating the limits of nopassing zones. Installing no-passing limits in areas that are not warranted may reduce the overall safety of the corridor as drivers may become frustrated and attempt passing maneuvers at other locations without the necessary sight distance.
Why it works:
When the centerline markings do not differentiate between passing and no-passing areas, drivers may have difficulty determining where passing maneuvers can be completed safely. Providing clear and engineered passing and no-passing areas can encourage drivers to wait patiently for safe passing areas and avoid aggressively looking for passing opportunities.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe CRF: 40 - 53% R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes.
General information
Where to use:
Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway – especially those with a history of head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.
Why it works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe, All CRF: 15 - 68% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 89
R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes.
General information
Where to use:
Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may apply and care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.
Why it works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road CRF: 10 - 41% R32, Speed Safety Cameras
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the road sections that Speed Safety Cameras are newly installed.
Agencies should conduct a legal and policy review to determine if Speed Safety Cameras (SSCs) are authorized within a jurisdiction and how the authorization and other traffic laws will affect an SSC program. Please refer to Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide. FHWA, (2023).
General information
Where to use:
Agencies should conduct a network analysis of speeding-related crashes to identify locations to implement SSCs. The analysis can include scope (e.g., widespread, localized), location types (e.g., urban/suburban/rural, work zones, residential, school zones), roadway types (e.g., expressways, arterials, local streets), times of day, and road users most affected by speed-related crashes (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists). SSCs can be deployed as:
Fixed units—a single, stationary camera targeting one location.
Point-to-Point (P2P) units—multiple cameras to capture average speed over a certain distance.
Mobile units—a portable camera, generally in a vehicle or trailer.
Why it works:
Safe Speeds is a core principle of the Safe System Approach since humans are less likely to survive high-speed crashes. Enforcing safe speeds has been challenging; however, with more information and tools communities can make progress in reducing speeds. Agencies can use speed safety cameras (SSCs) as an effective and reliable technology to supplement more traditional methods of enforcement, engineering measures, and education to alter the social norms of speeding. SSCs use speed measurement devices to detect speeding and capture photographic or video evidence of vehicles that are violating a set speed threshold.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: -46 - 61 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 90
R33PB, Install bike lanes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the Class II (not Class III) bike lanes. When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.
General information
Where to use:
Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions.
Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.
Why it works:
Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists’ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. For simple installation scenarios, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 0 - 53 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 91
R34PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the separated bike lanes.
When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.
General information
Where to use:
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. These options range in feasibility due to roadway characteristics, available space, and cost. In some cases, it may be possible to provide additional space in areas where pedestrian and bicyclists may interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another.
Why it works:
Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate leftturns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street.
In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The cost of Installing separated bike lanes can be low to medium or high, depending on whether roadway widening, right-ofway and environmental impacts are involved. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 3.7 - 100 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 92
R35PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the new walkway. This CM is not intended to be used where an existing sidewalk is being replaced with a wider one, unless prior Caltrans approval is included in the application. When an off-street multi-use path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.
General information
Where to use:
Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
Why it works:
Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for nonmotorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs for sidewalks will vary, depending upon factors such as width, materials, and existing of curb, gutter and drainage.
Asphalt curbs and walkways are less expensive, but require more maintenance. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. These projects can be very effective in areas of high-pedestrian volumes with a past history of crashes involving pedestrians.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 65 - 89 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 93
R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the new crossing which includes new enhanced safety features. Note:
This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install raised pedestrian crossing" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. For multi-lane roadways, advance "yield" markings can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.
The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
Care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending on the extent of the curb extensions, raised medians, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian safety elements that are needed with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these improvements can sometimes be low cost and funded through local funding by local crews. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 8 - 56% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 94
R37PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the area with the new raised crossing. Note:
This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio.
General information
Where to use:
On lower-speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle access or truck route issues.
Why it works:
Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the elements of the raised crossing and the need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have medium to high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 30 - 46% R38PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.
General information
Where to use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why it works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 95
R39AL, Install Animal Fencing
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Animal 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "animal" crashes occurring within the limits of the new fencing.
General information
Where to use:
At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive).
Why it works:
Animal fencing helps to channelize the identified animals to a natural or man-made crossing, eliminating the conflict between vehicles and animals on the same place. Animal fencing is typically installed at a bridge location with its "run of need" dependent on the surrounding terrain.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Time to install fencing can be moderate to lengthy depending on the environmental commitments and agreed upon solution to mitigating project impacts. Costs will be fairly low and depend on the "run of need" length. There will be minimal reoccurring maintenance costs on keeping the fence intact. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Animal CRF: 70 - 90 % 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 96
Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”
The information contained here represent a brief summary of each section of this manual as well as the Summary of “Recommended Actions” from Sections 2 through 7. This is intended to be a quick-reference for local agency practitioners working on a “proactive safety analysis” of their roadway network.
Introduction and Purpose
As safety practitioners consider implementing a ‘proactive safety analysis approach’ they should consider the overall context of the safety issues facing California local agencies and Caltrans primary goals for preparing this manual for California’s local roadway owners. Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the process and Appendices E and F provide examples and lessons learned from recent statewide callsfor-projects.
Identifying Safety Issues
This section provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used. As practitioners gather information they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data.
State and Local Crash Databases
Recommended Action: Obtain at least 3 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or tools from private for-profit vendors) can help the safety practitioner access and manage their crash data.
Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.
Observational Information
Recommended Action: Gather information received from law enforcement and road maintenance crew observations. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 97
Public Notifications
Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited.
Roadway Data and Devices
Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.
Exposure Data
Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.
Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken.
Safety Data Analysis
This section summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.
Quantitative Analysis
Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of their roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies, including:
Crash Frequency
Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments.
For lower volume roadways, network wide pin-maps may be more effective.
Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles and pedestrians.
Crash Rate
Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments in relationship to length, volumes, and/or density.
Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate.
Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate.
Qualitative Analysis
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 98
Recommended Action: Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify roadway infrastructure characteristics relating to both locations with compliance issues and locations with high crash frequencies/rates. As part the field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures.
Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2.
Countermeasures
This Section provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown in this manual. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). NOTE: Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as 1 – CMF. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout this document.
Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors Countermeasure Details and Characteristics
Recommended Action: Agencies should use all information and results obtained through completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual and should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding.
Calculating the B/C ratio and Comparing Projects
This section defines a methodology for calculating a benefit to cost (B/C) ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness.
Estimating the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Benefit’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
Estimating the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 99
Calculating the B/C Ratio
Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits or utilizing lower cost countermeasures for projects with low initial B/C ratios.
Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
This section identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.
Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.
Other Funding Sources
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures including the HSIP and ATP Programs.
Project Development and Construction Considerations
Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
Evaluation Improvements
This section presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well.
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet to track future safety project installations and record 3+ years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 100
Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations
This appendix includes the Benefit Cost methodology used in the Caltrans Calls-for-projects in the HSIP programs. The HSM, Part B - Chapter 7, includes more details on conducting Economic Appraisal for roadway safety projects. Local agencies will be required to utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) as part of their application for HSIP funding.
Starting in Cycle 7 call for projects, the fatality and severe injury costs have been combined for calculating the benefit. Because fatality figures are small and are a matter of randomness, this change is being made to reduce the possibility of selecting an improvement project on the basis of randomness. 1) Combined Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) of multiple countermeasures (CMs):
Assume there are 3 CMs with CRF1, CRF2 and CRF3 as their individual CRFs:
CRFcombined = 1 – (1-CRF1)(1-CRF2)(1-CRF3).
2) Annual benefit of project = ∑ CRFcombined×𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠×CCs
Y
3 s=0
o CRFcombined: Combined CRF of multiple CMs.
o S: Crash severity (0/1/2/3. See the below table.
o Ns: Number of crashes in each severity level.
o CCs: Crash cost of each severity level.
o Y: Crash data time period (year).
Severity (S) Crash Severity * Location Type Crash Cost *** 3 **Fatality and Severe Injury
Combined (KA)
Signalized Intersection $2,162,000
3 Non-Signalized Intersection $3,440,000
3 Roadway $2,978,000
2 Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) $193,000
1 Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) $110,000
0 Property Damage Only (O) $18,000
* The letters in parenthesis (K, A, B, C and O) refer to the KABCO scale; it is commonly used by law enforcement agencies in their crash reporting efforts and is further documented in the HSM. ** Figures were calculated based on an average Fatality (K) / Severe Injury (A) ratio for each area type.
These costs are used in the HSIP Analyzer.
*** Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2024 Dollars. 3) Life benefit of project = Annual benefit of project x Service life of project (years) 4) Project BCR = Life benefit of project
Total project cost
4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 101
Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS
As demonstrated throughout the manual, SafeTREC’s TIMS website https://tims.berkeley.edu/ can be used to assist local agencies in completing a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network.
Note: This manual focuses on TIMS as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. Local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor-supplied crash analysis software to complete their data collection and analysis process.
SWITRS Query & Map:
The SWITRS Query & Map application is a tool for accessing and mapping fatal and injury crash data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
SWITRS GIS Map:
The SWITRS GIS Map offers an interactive map-centric approach to viewing and querying SWITRS collision data with various tools including crash diagram, rank by intersection, etc.
Crash Diagram Tool:
The Crash Diagram tool allows users to generate an interactive crash diagram. The crash diagram is accessible through SWITRS GIS Map after a set of crashes is selected.
ATP Maps & Summary Data:
The ATP Maps & Summary Data tool utilizes interactive crash maps to allow users to track and document pedestrian and bicycle crashes and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits. Though it is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), this tool may be useful in developing an HSIP project targeting pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 102
Appendix F: List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATP Active Transportation Program
B/C Ratio; BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
Caltrans California Department of Transportation (Division of Local Assistance) CA-MUTCD California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CM Countermeasure
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
“5 E’s of Safety” Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCCL High Crash Concentration Location
HR3, HRRR High Risk Rural Roads Program
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
RSA Roadway Safety Audit
SafeTREC Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System (a product of SafeTREC) 4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 103
Appendix G: References
1. FHWA, Office of Safety website: Local and Rural Road Safety Program • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/
2. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Product of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
• http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx
3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Data Resource • https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/
4. California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) • https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd
5. Caltrans’ website on the Highway Design Manual
• https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm
6. FHWA, Research and Development website for pedestrian & bicyclist safety • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/
7. AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”) AASHTO - the Roadside Design Guide
• https://store.transportation.org/
8. FHWA – Public Roads Magazine:
• https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/home
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
97 APPENDIX G: HSIP ANALYZERS (2024)
Please contact the City for a copy of the Analyzers.
City of Fort Bragg
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
98 APPENDIX H: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CALCULATION
Project Prioritization Calculation
Buckets Value
Highest Value 195
Lowest Value 0
Group Range 65
Bucket 1 below 65 Bucket 2 below 130 Bucket 3 below 195 Priority
Project
Safety Benefits
Benefits to
Vulnerable Road
Users
School Safety
Impact
Equity Impact
Public
Engagement
Ease of
Implementation
Score
1 City Project 2A: Improve Pedestrian Safety at Non- Signalized Intersections. (Pedestrian Set Aside) 100 100 100 100 100 50 95 2 City Project 2B: Improve Pedestrian Safety on Willow Street. (Pedestrian Set Aside) 100 100 100 100 100 20 92 3 SH Project 1 : Improve Safety at Improve Safety at Signalized Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. 100 100 0 100 100 50 85 4 City Project 1: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersections. 50 100 100 100 100 100 80 5 SH Project 4: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment. 50 100 0 100 100 100 70 6 City Project 5: Citywide Sign Inventory 20 100 100 100 100 100 68 7 City Project 4: Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety at Roadway Segments. 20 100 100 100 100 50 63 8 SH Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segments. 50 0 0 100 100 100 55 9 City Project 3: Improve Safety at Roadway Segment. 20 0 100 100 100 100 53 10 SH Project 2: Improve Safety at Non-Signalized Intersection. 20 100 0 0 0 50 28